K'taka HC sentences adopted son for selling father's properties

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: Refusing to accept the written apology of a litigant the High Court has given him the option of either going to jail for three months or pay up the entire amount he obtained while selling properties on which the court had granted a stay.

“We hold that the so called apology is not an act of penitence, contrition or regret and the acceptance of such an apology in the case on hand would be allowing the contemnors to go away with impunity after committing gross contempt of Courts,” Justice B Veerappa and Justice KS Hemalekha said in their judgment on February 3.

The judgment quoted the Supreme Court in the LD Jaikwal case and said “Saying ‘sorry’ does not make the slipper taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered. Apology shall not be paper apology and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and not from the pen. For it is one thing to ‘say’ sorry – it is another to ‘feel’ sorry.”

Somanna, Mani, Ningammanni and Kempammanni had filed for partition of property from TM Mahadevappa. All are residents of Nanjangud taluk in Mysuru. The litigations started in 2009 and had reached the HC in 2012 which directed TM Mahadevappa not to dispose of the property until the case was disposed of. Somanna and others approached the HC again in 2017 stating that some of the properties were sold away despite the HC directing not to create third party interest in the properties.

Mahadevappa and Subbamma had died in the meantime and their adopted son Devaraju as the legal heir appeared in the case. Devaraju contended that his father Mahadevappa had incurred heavy loans and in order to reimburse the loan amount, they were forced to mortgage the property.

He could still not clear the loan and therefore sold the land. He further tendered an unconditional apology “for unintentional mistake committed by his father and himself.” The HC said that punishing under Contempt of Court was a drastic step but this case deserved it. “Punishing the person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. However, at the same time, it is not only power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of the Courts and Majesty of the law which may call for such extreme steps.

For proper administration of justice and ensure the due compliance with the orders passed by the Courts, it is required to take strict view under the Act and its should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt,” the HC said.  Sentencing Devaraju, the HC told the accused-contemnor to either go to jail for three months with a fine of Rs 2000 or "deposit the entire sale consideration amount pending consideration of the appeal, within two months.”