In Brief
A purchaser was found guilty of contempt of court for buying property in violation of an interim injunction order. The seller (his daughter-in-law) was acquitted of the same charge in revision. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that without clear evidence of knowledge of the injunction order, the buyer could not be held guilty. The Court reasoned that he cannot be in a worse position than the original seller, and that contempt requires wilful disobedience with knowledge. The Court also noted the buyer's age and that the decree-holder had similarly executed a sale deed, warranting the appeal's allowance.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.