AP High Court Declines Party's Apology For Selling Property In Violation Of Court Order, Orders ₹10K Costs & 1-Month Imprisonment
Saahas Arora
13 April 2026 3:00 PM IST
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to accept an apology tendered by an individual contemnor (Respondent 2), who mortgaged a disputed property and sold part of it to third parties despite a Court order specifically restraining him from doing so, while holding that the disobedience was a “conscious” and “deliberate” act.
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam were adjudicating a long-standing property dispute between a family (petitioner and respondents), where the petitioners had initially secured a preliminary decree of partition from the trial court in 2017. However, when appeal was filed before the High Court, it issued an interim order in 2021 and allowed respondent 2 to temporarily take custody of certain original property documents, subject to strict conditions. Such conditions included abstinence from creation of third-party rights over the property and mortgaging of documents, and mandatory return of documents at the time of hearing and disposal of the case.
However, in violation of the 2021 order, respondent 2 mortgaged the disputed property to a cooperative bank in 2023, and sold part of it to third parties in 2024. Accordingly, the petitioners filed a contempt petition claiming wilful disobedience of the 2021 order.
Justifying the deeds, Respondent 2 cited compelling personal and financial reasons behind the transactions, and submitted that there was no wilful or intentional disobedience. It was further contended that the sale transactions in favour of third parties was without any intention to alienate the property in favour of the purchasers who had also executed a 'kararnama' agreeing to reconvey the property after payment of the entire loan amount. It was further submitted that the power to punish for contempt, though wide and constitutionally entrenched, is to be exercised with circumspection in a manner that serves the ends of justice rather than merely penalising the individual.
Refusing to accept the defence, the Division Bench observed that the charges against the Respondent stood proved and the disobedience was considered deliberate and intentional. The Bench stated,
“The defence is not acceptable to us. The execution of mortgage deed and sale deed was a conscious act. There could not be any circumstance or justification to violate the Court's Order. The application for modification of the interim order dated 16.07.2021 seeking permission to alienate on the ground of financial requirement was clearly rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2022 but inspite therefore alienations were made. Wilful means an act or omission which is done voluntarily either to disobey or to disregard the law.”
While Respondent 2 had tendered an apology before the Court, the Division Bench refused to entertain the same and observed that the same was not bonafide. It reiterated that unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it would not be accepted, and further emphasised that if the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment, it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward.
Accordingly, the Court punished respondent 2 with a sentence of simple imprisonment in a civil prison for a term of one month and a fine of Rs. 2000/- The Court also imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- on respondent 2 to be deposited in the Court.
Case Details:
Case Number: CONTEMPT CASE No.1636 of 2025
Case Title: Nagatham Suneetha & another v. Nagatham Muni Rajamma (died) & 3 others