BEFORE THE DISTRICT MUNSIF OF MADRAS

PETITION NO. : ……… /2020

(UNDER SECTION 1OF TAMILNADU CIVIL COURTS ACT 1873)

In the matter between

Murugesan ………………………..............….......……PETITIONER

v.

Sudharshan and others ……………………....................................RESPONDENT

MOST REVERENTLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF

HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

1
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S.NO TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1. List of Abbreviations 03

2. Index of Authorities 04

3. Statement of Jurisdiction 06

4. Brief facts of the Case 07

5. Issues Raised 08

6. Summary of Arguments 09

7. Arguments Advanced 11

8. Prayer 20

2
List of abbreviations

Abbreviation Full Form

AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
ed. Edition
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honorable
I.L.R. Indian Law Reporter
Ors. Others
Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UOI Union of India
V./ vs Versus
U/A Under Article 
U/S Under Section 
No. Number
¶ Paragraph

BOOKS REFERRED :

1. Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, The Registration Act (12th ed.2012).

2. Dr.Avtar Singh, Textbook on the Transfer of Property Act (3rd ed.2012).

3
3. Paras Diwan, Law of Adoption Minority Guardianship & Custody (5th ed. 2012).

4. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence (23rd ed.2011).

5. G.C.V Subba Rao, Law of Transfer of Property (7th ed.2012).

6. A.K.Tripathi, Supreme Court on Law of Evidence (1st ed. 2007).

ONLINE SITES:
www.manupatrafast.com

www.lawmirror.com

www.scconline.com

www.web2.westlaw.com

www.indiankanoon.org

www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in

www.legalservicesindia.com

www.geneticsandsociety.org

www.livelaw.com

CASES REFERRED :

4
Mohamed Musa v Aghore Kumar Ganguli, (1915) 42 Cal 801: 42 IA 1. Justice was quoted
saying “A transfer can be made orally unless expressly required by the law to be in writing.
Prior to passing of the Act, no writing was necessary for such transfer.
Immudiapattam v. Periya Dorasami (1901) 24 Mad 377; Bishan Dial v Ghazi-ud-din. (1901)
23 All 175.
Section 5, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section 6, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Bare Act)
Section 9, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Bare Act)
Section 9, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Bare Act)
Weavers Mills v Balkis Ammal, AIR 1969 Mad 462 (469,470): (1969) 2 Mad LJ 509
Sarandaya Pillay v Sankarlinga Pillai Sarandaya Pillay v Sankarlinga Pillai
Gangadhara Rao v G. Gangarao, AIR 1968 AP 291
Centre for Internet and Society, available at
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/bitcoin-legal-regulation-india. (extracted on 11th
July, 2017)
Ramdas v. Pahlad, AIR 1965 Bom 74 (75,76): 66 Bom LR 499; Subramniyan v.
Venkatachalam Pillai (2011) 6 MLJ 743 (752) (Mad)
Narsingh Dass v. Radhakisan, 1952 Bom 425
Keshri Mull v. Sukan Ram, 1933 Pat. 264
Peddu Reddiar v. Kothanda Reddi, 1966 Mad 419
Weavers Mills Ltd. v. Balkis Ammal, 1969 Mad 463: (1969) 2 MLJ 509: (1969) 2 MLJ 509:
(1969) 1 Mad 433
Kale v Director of Consolidation, 1976 SC 807: (1976) 3 SCC 119: (1976) 3 SCR 202.
1972 J&K 472
Ramdas v. Pahlad, AIR 1965 Bom 74 (75,76) : 66 Bom LR 499
Bhuta Singh v Mangu, AIR 1930 Lah 9; Ram Sarup v. Ram dei, (1907) 29 ALL 239; Sheo
Singh v. Jeoni, (1897) 19 ALL 524
Bhagwatibai v. Bhagwandas, AIR 1927 Sind 206
Dashrath Narayan Shinde v. Gangaram Ghag Laxman, 2010 (4) Mah LJ 392 (394) (Bom) :
(2010) 3 Bom CR 641

5
 Facts of the case

Sudharshan vs Murugeshan

6
 ● Shankaran entered into an agreement to sale with Murugeshan on 04.04.2012 for
three acres of land which is situated in Kancheepuram.
● Murugeshan within 3 months of agreement to sale paid consideration leaving Rs.
200 due and Shankaran transferred the position to Murugesan.
● However Shankaran died on 10.10.2012 and as the property of Shankaran was
divided property from ancestral and he had no children or wife surviving,
paternal succession claimed that the property belongs to them.
● However Shankaran lived with the maternal family’s uncle and uncle’s son by
name Sudharshan who showed the will on his name and Shankar’s paternal
family went to the court where the judgement was given in favour of uncle’s son
Text of advocate.
Sudharshan because of misrepresentation
● The court had given “Status Quo”until further proceedings.Now this uncle's son
Sudharshan approached Murugeshan to vacant the land.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Tamilnadu civil courts act 1873

Local extent. - It extends to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu. The jurisdiction of a
District Munsif extends to all like suits and proceedings, not otherwise exempted from his
cognizance, of which the amount of value of the subject-matter does not exceed [ten lakh
rupees.]

7
 Issues raised

WHETHER THE CRIMINAL TRESPASS BY THE WILL HOLDER SUDHARSHAN

IS QUESTIONABLE ?

8
IS THE PROPERTY IS WHOLLY TRANSFERRED TO MURUGESAN BY
SANKARAN BEFORE DEATH?

IS THE WILL POSSESSED BY SUDHARSHAN IS VALID OR NOT?

DOES SUDHARSHAN PERFORMED CONTEMPT OF THE COURT BY

OVERRULING STATUS QUO ?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

WHETHER THE CRIMINAL TRESPASS CONDUCTED BY THE POSSESSOR OF

WILL SUDHARSHAN IS QUESTIONABLE ?

Yes the criminal trespass conducted by the will possessor Sudharshan is questionable. As the
land was claimed by Murugesan for a long time and he had cultivation in that land

9
Sudharshan has no rights to enter into the land and ask Murugesan to vacate the land.So,
Sudharshan is liable for criminal trespass under Sec 441 of IPC.

IS THE PROPERTY IS WHOLLY TRANSFERRED TO MURUGESAN BY

SANKARAN BEFORE DEATH?

YES. Murugesan legally holds the property which has been given ownership after fulfilling
the conditions of the agreement. The agreement was made between Shankaran and
Murugesan with specific consideration. Murugesan still had due of Rs.200 to pay the
ownership of the land was transferred to him by Shankaran. The due amount was considered
for cleaning and fencing the land before selling it to the party. In such a case the property is
legally transferred and the whole rights of the land is given to Murugeshan.

IS THE WILL POSSESSED BY SUDHARSHAN IS VALID OR NOT?

No, the will possessed by Sudharshan is not valid.There is a doubt on the matter that the will
is forged. As the land was transferred long before the death of Shankaran with his sound
mind, there is no chance to frame a will on that property under the name of Sudharshan.

Making a Will helps ensure one's property devolves as wished and the right heirs receive their
fair shares. Under the Indian Succession Act 1925, a Will is a legal declaration of the
intention of the testator, with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect
after his death.

After the death of a person, his property devolves in two ways - according to his Will i.e.
testamentary, or according to the respective laws of succession, when no Will is made. In case
an individual dies intestate (no Will is made), the laws of succession come into play.

DOES SUDHARSHAN PERFORMED CONTEMPT OF THE COURT BY

OVERRULING STATUS QUO ?

Yes. There is an order of status quo which has been passed by the Hon'ble Court,which states
no further direction/ permission has been granted by the authorities quo the canal in question
and the position as it existed on the date of order dtd.But Sudharshan with group of rowdies

10
entered into Murugesan’s land and made him vacate the land. He had performed contempt of
the court.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE CRIMINAL TRESPASS CONDUCTED BY THE

POSSESSOR OF WILL SUDHARSHAN IS QUESTIONABLE ?

Trespass

Trespass is a physical interference by a person in a property belonging to another person. It

could be a tort of trespass when there is a direct interference with the peaceful enjoyment of
the land in the form of unlawful entry, unlawful placing of things or inducing dangerous
things or animals into the land or it could be a criminal act provided under Section 441 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 which defines ‘criminal trespass’ as ‘Whoever enters into or upon

11
property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or
annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered and unlawfully
remains there.’ Intention is an element as ‘mens rea’ is important for an act to be criminal.
Punishment for the same is provided under Section 447, which includes imprisonment for
upto 3 months; fine upto Rs. 500 or both.

The Supreme Court examined the definition of a ‘trespass’ in 2010 in Laxmi Ram Pawar v.
Sitabai Balu Dhotre1, in the context of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance
and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that, ‘A trespass is an
unlawful interference with one’s person, property or rights. With reference to property, it is
wrongful invasion of another’s possession.’

In the case of Mathuri and Ors. vs. State of Punjab2,The Supreme Court held that in order to
establish that the entry on the property was with the intent to annoy, intimidate or insult, it is
necessary for the Court to be satisfied that causing such annoyance, intimidation or insult was
the aim of the entry; that it is not sufficient for that purpose to show merely that the natural
consequence of the entry was likely to be annoyance, intimidation or insult, and that this
likely consequence was known to the persons entering; that in deciding whether the aim of
the entry was the causing of such annoyance, intimidation or insult, the Court has to consider
all the relevant circumstances including the presence of knowledge that its natural
consequences would be such annoyance, intimidation or insult and including also the
probability of something else than the causing of such intimidation, insult or annoyance,
being the dominant intention which promoted the entry.

A person who unlawfully remains in the property of the other is also liable for ‘trespass by
remaining on the land.’ This is when a person lawfully enters into another persons’ property
but remains there even after the right ceases to exist. There is ‘continuing trespass’ as well,
which means that trespass by way of personal entry continues as long as the wrong-doer is
personally on the land. Or, if he has induced a thing, trespass continues for as long as the
thing is removed from the land.

Section 441 in The Indian Penal Code

Criminal trespass.—Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with
intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such
property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there
with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an
offence, is said to commit “criminal trespass”.

Ingredients:

1
Laxmi Ram Pawar vs Sitabai Balu Dhotre & Anr on 1 December, 2010
2
Madhuri And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 December, 1963

12
It can be gathered that, the essential ingredients of a criminal trespass, therefore are:
1.Entry into or upon property in the possession of another;
2.If such entry is lawful, then unlawfully remaining upon such property;
3.Such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent to commit offence, annoy or
intimidate the person.
Also, the property has to be in actual possession of another person. ‘Actual’ means to the
exclusion of all other people. It need not necessarily be in the possession of the owner, it
could be with the tenant as well. Besides, the entry need not be forceful; it is enough if it is
without permission. However, the owner needs to be diligent about a peaceful trespasser who
is unaware of the title of the true owner since, if the owner does not assert his title within a
prescribed period and trespasser is allowed to have peaceful, continuous possession, he
acquires an absolute title over the land. The limitation period provided under Article 65 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 for suit for possession of immovable property is twelve years.

This was observed by the Supreme Court in Nair Service Society v. K.C. Alexander3on the
basis of which various propositions with regard to trespasser vis-a-vis a true owner were laid
down. Some of the relevant propositions are mentioned below:

Unauthorized entry into another’s land will not have the effect of dispossessing the true
owner. Such acts will lead to settled possession only when the true owner having knowledge
of it, acquiesced.When the trespasser is not in settled possession, the rightful owner can
re-enter and reinstate himself by removing the obstruction or unauthorized construction by
using minimum force. Such action by true owner will be considered as defending his
possession.

However, if the trespasser is in settled possession and such adverse possession continues for
12 years, the right of the true owner is extinguished.
Therefore, if the acts of the person in possession of a property are irreconcilable with the
rights of the true owner, such acts of the person in possession would constitute adverse
possession/settled possession against the true owner. As a consequence, it is always advisable
for the owner to approach the court for remedy against any kind of trespass if repeated
notices to the trespasser go ineffective.

The owner or tenant of the land in possession of the property is entitled to remedies in the
form of:

(i) Injunction – to restrain trespasser from causing any further damage

(ii) Damages – compensation for all the losses you have incurred due to the trespass.

3
Nair Service Society Ltd vs Rev. Father K. C. Alexander & Ors on 12 February, 1968

13
Section 441 of IPC defines Criminal trespass in the following words,
Whoever enters into property in the possession of another with the intent to commit an
offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having
lawfully entered into such property, but remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult
or any such person, or with an intent to commit an offence, is said to commit criminal
trespass.

Consequently, it may be inferred that criminal trespass is divided into two parts, the first part
refers to the act when someone unlawfully, without any right or an express or implied license,
enters into the private property of another person and the second part in which the entry is
lawful but the person remains in such property with a criminal intention which makes the act
unlawful.

Punishment for Criminal Trespass

The punishment for criminal trespass has been defined under Section 447, IPC, which states
that:
Section 447- Punishment for criminal trespass-Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.'

Thus, Punishment for criminal trespass, as prescribed in Section 447 of IPC is either
imprisonment which may extend to three months, or fine which may extend to INR 500 or
both.

Ingredients of Criminal Trespass

The essential ingredients of Criminal trespass are:

● Entry into or upon property in the possession of another;
● If this entry is lawful, then unlawfully remaining upon such property;
● Such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent-
● to commit an offence; or
● to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of the property.
● The use of criminal force is not a necessary ingredient.

The words preceding the term property under Section 441, IPC, are entry into or upon. It is
clear from the usage of the latter words that the Section does not apply to incorporeal
property like right of fishery, right of easement, right of ferry etc. It applies to corporeal
property or property which according to this Section is capable of being entered upon or
entered into. The question arises now is whether this Section extends its application to both
movable and immovable property.

14
The answer to this is that the term property as used under Section 441 is wide enough to
include both forms of property-movable or immovable as both can be entered into as well as
entered upon. Thus, there can be a criminal trespass into a car, boat etc.

The concept of possession embraces both actual and constructive possession. Possession may
exist in law but not in fact and such possession is termed as constructive. Entry in or upon the
property of another person may cause annoyance to the owner even if he be not present at the
time of entry. A trespass with intent to cause annoyance to the owner may conceivably be
made even though the owner be not present at the time of the trespass.

The cause of annoyance is the violation of the rights of ownership and not the presence or
absence of the owner at the time of trespass. The degree of annoyance may be more in the
case of trespass in the presence of the owner but it is not correct that no annoyance is caused
if the owner is not present at the time of trespass.

Intention forms an important ingredient of Criminal Trespass:

That means, if intention referred in Section 441 is not proved then no offence of criminal
trespass has taken place. The intention has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of
the case. For instance, a person entering into the property of his neighbour with an intention
to save his life from imminent danger commits civil trespass, he has not committed the
offence of criminal trespass. In other words, a person in exercise of his Right to private
defence, entering into the property of someone else, with no criminal intent, will not be held
liable under the offence of Criminal Trespass.

In the case of Mathuri and Ors. vs. State of Punjab4,The Supreme Court held that in order to
establish that the entry on the property was with the intent to annoy, intimidate or insult, it is
necessary for the Court to be satisfied that causing such annoyance, intimidation or insult was
the aim of the entry; that it is not sufficient for that purpose to show merely that the natural
consequence of the entry was likely to be annoyance, intimidation or insult, and that this
likely consequence was known to the persons entering; that in deciding whether the aim of
the entry was the causing of such annoyance, intimidation or insult, the Court has to consider
all the relevant circumstances including the presence of knowledge that its natural
consequences would be such annoyance, intimidation or insult and including also the
probability of something else than the causing of such intimidation, insult or annoyance,
being the dominant intention which promoted the entry.

Ramjan Mistry v. Emperor5,In this case, the court ruled that it is not only necessary to prove
the existence of the intention to insult, annoy or intimidate, but also it is required to show that
the intention is an actual one and not just based on probability. The intention of the accused
could be inferred from the acts of the accused. Also, in the absence of such an intention of

4
Mathuri And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 December, 1963
5
Ramzan Mistry And Ors. vs Emperor on 2 January, 1929

15
annoying, intimidating or insulting someone, or commission of an offence, it is impossible to
convict someone for criminal trespass.

In this case the defendant has entered into the property of the plaintiff and asked him to
vacate the land stating that he has the will of the land. It is the criminal trespass of the
defendant on the plaintiffs land.

2.IS THE PROPERTY IS WHOLLY TRANSFERRED TO MURUGESAN BY

SANKARAN BEFORE DEATH?

Under the Transfer of Property Act 1882, section 54 states that sale is defined as the transfer
of ownership of a property in exchange for a price paid or promised or partly paid or part
promised.

Price is a consideration paid for the transfer of property. Therefore price is money but not
necessarily money immediately paid in notes and coins, it includes money which might be
already due or payable at a future date. A transfer is not a sale if no price is paid or promised
or partly paid or promised.A sale can be executed orally, there is no mandatory requirement
of being transferred through a written document. In the case of Nalamathu Venkaiya v. B.S.
Neelkanta,the court held that payment of consideration is of the essence when a transfer of
property is made through a sale. The time of payment of consideration is not material.
Consideration may be promised or paid at a future date.

Under section 55 (6)(a) after the completion of the sale, the buyer is entitled to the benefit of
any improvement or increase in the value of the property. He is also entitled to the rents and
profits resulting from the property.

16
There are six elements, which make a property transferable. The requirements to be met as
per Section 5 are four in number.

1. The transfer must be by a living or juristic person.

A juristic person was defined in the case Shiromanigurudwara Prabhakar committee,

Amritsar v. Sri Somnath Dass. In this case, the court said that a juristic person can be an
individual, firm, corporate company, association, society, not including partnership firm. Any
individual who can sue or be sued under law would satisfy this requirement.

2. The transfer must be through a conveyance.

Conveyance can be present or future. However conveyance can take place only if there is a
creation of a new title. Therefore, there should have been nothing with the transferee before
the title. In addition to this, the term future is used to define the future interest in the property
and not the future property itself. Therefore, the word future property itself must be
transferred. Therefore, the word future is for the conveyance.

3. Thirdly, the property itself must be transferred.

4. Fourthly, it must be made to a living or a juristic person.

Any kind immovable property can be transferred. Any kind of immovable property can be
transferred other than that which is given in Section 6 of the TOPA. In the case Samsudden v.
Abdul Husen it was held that the chance to transfer couldn’t be transferred. The right to
re-entry, easement can’t be transferred. Specific rights cannot be transferred, as there are only
certain people who should enjoy the right. The right to sue, public office, unlawful objects
cannot be transferred.

The third element is competency as under Section 7 of TOPA. The individual must not be a
minor or an insane person. The person must have the title of property or the person must have
the authority to transfer; in part or in whole, as held in the case Krishna Khurhai v. Grindlays
bank, if transfer is made ultra vires to the authority vested in the agent, the transfer will be
void.

The fourth element being that under Section 6(h)(3) the person must not be a legally
disqualified transferee. For example under Section 136 of TOPA judges, legal practitioners
and officers connected to the court are disqualified from purchasing actionable claims.

The fifth element being that a valid transfer can also happen under Section 9 of TOPA as an
oral transfer.

Section 5 of T.P. Ac defines Transfer of Property and by bare reading of the section it can be
understood that the same means an act by which a living person conveys property in present

17
or in future to one or more living persons, (including/excluding) himself. Here living person
according to Section 5 includes any person or a company or an association or a body of
individuals, which may or may not be incorporated. Now, the question arises in what kind of
properties can or cannot be transferred. The Act does not specify or has no exhaustive list to
answer the same but section 6 of T.P. Act states that property of any kind may be transferred,
except if stated otherwise in the act which essentially makes an exhaustive list of things
which cannot be called property and which cannot be transferred.

Section 9 of the Act talks about oral transfer of property. It states that A transfer of property
may be made without writing in every case in which a writing is not expressly required by
law.”

This section essentially mandates that a transfer of property may be made without writing in
every case in which writing is not expressly mentioned/required by law but it is also essential
to note here that the act is not exhaustive of such kinds of transfers.

In a very famous case of Sarandaya Pillay v Sankarlinga Pillai6, Ramaswami J., of Madras
High Court observed “the test, therefore in this country to determine whether a transaction
(be it a transfer or not) can be made without writing is to see if it is expressly required by law
to be in writing. If the transaction is a transfer of property and there is no express provisions
of law requiring it to be in writing, section 9 will enable it to be made without writing and
vice versa” through which an essential inference can be drawn and it can be said that if the
transaction is a transfer of property and there is no express provision of law requiring it to be
in writing then the general principle referred above will enable it to be validly made without
writing.

The reasoning of Section 9 underlines the general principles that everything is to be taken
permissible unless there is a prohibition against it and has been inserted in the statute ex
abundanti cautela.

All the six elements in transfer of property are satisfied by the plaintiff and the land was
transferred to him. The property is physically under the control of Murugesan and he is the
owner of it. Under section 9 of the Transfer of property act ,the fifth element of valid transfer
can be an oral transfer. After the consideration was given to Shankaran he has given the
ownership rights to Murugeshan so he holds the title of the land. Now Sudharshan has no
rights to get the possession of the property.

6
Serandaya Pillai And Anr. vs Sankaralingam Pillai And Anr. on 30 September, 1958

18
3.DOES SUDHARSHAN PERFORMED CONTEMPT OF THE COURT BY
OVERRULING STATUS QUO ?

Status quo’ means “the situation that currently exists”, and the order of status quo means that
the situation currently existing i.e at the time of the order should not be changed. The order of
status quo sometimes creates difficulties in its implementation. Plainly stated, the import of
the order is that nothing further be done with respect to the subject of the dispute so as to
change its features or character where the subject matter of dispute is some tangible property.

It is relevant to mention here the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case AIR 1988 SC 127 M/s
Bharat Coking Cold Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar has observed that the status quo means the status
has existed at any given point of time. In these circumstances the authorities are abided by the
interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court. If further order is being passed by this Hon'ble
Court then authorities will bound by the same and will comply the same in letter and spirit.
In Murugesan vs Sudharshan the hon’ble court has ordered status quo .Since there is an order
of status quo as has been passed by the Hon'ble Court, no further direction/ permission has
been granted by the authorities quo the canal in question and the position as it existed on the
date of order dtd.

For proper appreciation of the case, it is necessary to refer to Order 39, Rule 2-A, which reads
thus:
"Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction :--(1) In the case of disobedience of
any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the
terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the
injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred,
may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached,
and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding
three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.

Sudhir Namasudra v. Purnendu Kumar Das and others, AIR 1980 Gauhati 1, wherein it has
been stated that "there cannot be any violation of the order of injunction by a person unless he
is pointedly injuncted not to do or to do certain tilings by a Court of Law."

The Supreme Court in The State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari and others, 1961 SCR
728, held that "the procedure laid down by Order 39, Rule 2(3) of CPC is remedial and
essentially one for the enforcement or execution of an order of temporary injunction passed
under Order 39, Rule 2(1) and is available against the State although the provision for
detention may not apply to it". The word 'person' used in it, properly construed includes
defendants against whom order of injunction is primarily issued and also the defendants'
agents, servants, workmen. Disobedience of die said order when issued should necessarily
attract Order 39, Rule 2(3) of CPC.

19
Where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will
not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of
sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such
period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.

In this case the hon’ble court has ordered status quo but Sudharshan using the innocence of
Murugeshan entered into the land and stated that the court has ordered him to vacate the land.
Sudharshan had performed contempt of court and should be punished for imprisonment.

20
 PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited may this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to:

1. Confirm that the property is transferred to Murugesan under agreement and no one has the
rights to claim it.
2. Order that the will acquired by Sudharshan is void.

AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

All of which humbly submitted by

Counsel on behalf of Appellants

21