Skip to content


Shantilal Makanji Kalyanji Shah Vs. Ranchoddas Girdhardas and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContempt of Court
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1980)1SCC205; 1979(11)LC528(SC)
ActsContempt of Courts Act
AppellantShantilal Makanji Kalyanji Shah
RespondentRanchoddas Girdhardas and ors.
Excerpt:
.....also in every parcel of it; (2) possession of joint property by one co-owner is in the eye of law, possession of all even if all but one are actually out of possession; (3) a mere occupation of a larger portion or even of an entire joint property does not necessarily amount to ouster as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf of all; (4) the above rule admits of an exception when there is ouster of a co-owner by another. but in order to negative the presumption of joint possession on behalf of all, on the ground of ouster, the possession of a co-owner must not only be exclusive but also hostile to the knowledge of the other as, when a co-owner openly asserts his own title and denies, that of the other; (5) passage of time does not extinguish the right of the co-owner who has been..........over possession of the house in question to the respondent the high court has discussed the various aspects of the case and has found that the defence of the appellant that he was not in possession of the property was absolutely false and he deliberately committed the breach of the under-taking given by him to the court. this was undoubtedly a very serious matter which calls for a severe punishment and accordingly the high court sentenced the appellant for detention in civil prison for 6 months and fine of rs. 2,000/-. mr. lalit pressed this appeal substantially on the question of sentence only. having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we think the ends of justice will be met by reducing the sentence to imprisonment from six months to one month and the fine from rs......
Judgment:

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.

1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties in this case. The High Court has convicted the appellant for having committed an offence of contempt of Court under the Contempt of Courts Act for committing a breach of the clear undertaking given by him to the Court for handing over possession of the house in question to the respondent The High Court has discussed the various aspects of the case and has found that the defence of the appellant that he was not in possession of the property was absolutely false and he deliberately committed the breach of the under-taking given by him to the Court. This was undoubtedly a very serious matter which calls for a severe punishment and accordingly the High Court sentenced the appellant for detention in Civil Prison for 6 months and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Mr. Lalit pressed this appeal substantially on the question of sentence only. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we think the ends of justice will be met by reducing the sentence to imprisonment from six months to one month and the fine from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 1000/- particularly in view of the poor health of the appellant. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


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