Skip to content


Abdul Kareem Vs. Iswarappa and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.C.C. No. 4 of 1982
Judge
Reported in1983CriLJ114; ILR1982KAR189; 1982(1)KarLJ472
AppellantAbdul Kareem
Respondentiswarappa and ors.
Advocates:A.S. Menasinkai, Adv.
Excerpt:
- karnataka land reforms act, 1961.[k.a. no. 10/1962]. section 21 (1) & form 7a: [anand byrareddy, j] right of a beneficiary under a will claim for occupancy rights by virtue of the bequest under the will grant of occupancy rights challenge to finding of the tribunal that petitioner was not a full brother of the deceased tenant transfer of agricultural land with occupancy rights in favour of heirs - held, the object of section 21 being to confine the rights of tenancy only to stranger is barred. finding of the tribunal was upheld. .....that being so, it becomes obvious that the present application for contempt of court is not tenable in law and accordingly it is dismissed in limine. 4. application dismissed.
Judgment:

G.N. Sabhahit, J.

1. The contempt application instituted by Kareem is based on a consent order passed by this Court on 2-1-1980 in W.P. No. 4227/ 1979. The order reads :

'As agreed to by both the parties it is hereby directed that both the parties should not construct either by themselves or allow other to construct any new buildings, structures or huts in the disputed land till the disposal of this writ petition. No separate orders necessary on I.A. I.'

'I.A. No. I is accordingly disposed of, subject to the observations made above'.

2. Thus, it becomes clear that there is no order of the Court as such and the agreement of the parties is recorded and nothing more. No undertaking as such is taken by the Court. In such cases it is obvious that contempt proceeding cannot lie.

3. Contempt proceedings are mainly to uphold dignity and decorum of the Court and not to vindicate the rights of the parties. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin : 1979CriLJ952 of the judgment thus :

'There is not a clear cut distinction between a compromise arrived at between the parties or a consent order passed by the Court at the instance of the parties and a clear and categorical undertaking given by any of the parties. In the former, if there is violation of the compromise or the order, no question of contempt of court arises, but the party has a right to enforce the order or the compromise by their executing the order or getting an injunction from the Court'.

That being so, it becomes obvious that the present application for contempt of court is not tenable in law and accordingly it is dismissed in limine.

4. Application dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //