Karnataka High Court Modifies Imprisonment Sentence Of Cancer Patient For Wilful Disobedience Of Order, Imposes ₹3 Lakh Fine Instead

The Karnataka High Court has set aside one month's civil imprisonment term imposed on a cancer patient for the willful disobedience of the Court, instead it directed him to pay Rs 3 lakh fine.

A single judge, Justice H P Sandesh partly allowed the appeal filed by Reddy and modified the trial court order. It said, “since the appellant is suffering from cancer and taking note of mental agony on the plaintiffs, it is appropriate to award a fine of Rs.3 lakhs instead of punishment for the willful disobedience of the Court order.”

Radhamma had approached the court filing a suit for partition and separate possession of property, along with an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying for interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court has by its order dated 09.01.2002 directed the defendant Nos.1 to 3 shall not alienate the suit schedule properties till their filing of objections to I.A.No.1.

Later, she filed an affidavit in court stating that defendant No.had executed a sale deed on 10.10.2002 in favour of one B.K.Srinath and also contended that two more sale deeds are executed on 03.06.2004 and defendant No.2 has deliberately disobeyed the order dated 09.01.2002 and thus he may be ordered to be detained in civil prison. Following which the impugned order was passed.

The appellant contended that he was not having the knowledge or information regarding passing of orders. Moreover, imposing the punishment is very harsh and he has not disobeyed any order and there was no willful disobedience.

Further an affidavit was filed stating that he has sought an unconditional apology that he has not committed any willful disobedience and had contended that he is suffering from throat cancer from more than two years and underwent radiation and chemotherapy and the doctors had also suggested him to undergo surgery for third stage cancer. Under these circumstances, the Court has to pardon him on humanitarian grounds.

Findings:

The bench noted that the Trial Court had passed an order on 09.01.2002 restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 from alienating the suit schedule properties till their filing of objections to I.A.No.1. The appellant filed his objections to I.A.No.1 on 02.08.2003 and before that he sold the property on 10.10.2002, in favour of one Sri B.K. Srinath.

Then it said, “It is very clear that the plaintiffs/respondents till date have not received the fruits of the decree of granting relief of partition and even the appellant was unsuccessful before the Trial Court as well as this Court and not yet derived the share and this appellant is coming in the way of giving the share to the respondents.” The appellant also declined the suggestion made by the court to give the share of the respondents.

Observing that the suit was filed in the year 2001 and for more than two decades the respondents are fighting for their share. The respondent No.1 lost her husband and is having a daughter, but the appellant has not given the share for more than two decades and there is a willful disobedience of the order of the Court.

Noting that respondent No.1 was impersonated while getting the document of partition deed registered. The appellant claims partition of the year 2010, wherein the respondents/plaintiffs was impersonated and the Trial Court as well as this Court held that there was an impersonation.

Then it held, “Imposing the heavy fine would atleast give some relief to the respondents/plaintiffs, who are facing the agony from more than two decades to get the legal share on account of death of respondent No.1's husband and she is taking care of the daughter also. Hence, I answer the point for consideration in the negative, but it requires modification only on the health grounds with a humanitarian approach.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate Krishna Murthy for Advocate Chandrakanth Patil K for Appellant.

Advocate T.Seshagiri Rao for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 506

Case Title: Ananda Reddy AND Radhamma & ANR Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8803/2013

Click Here To Read/Download Order