THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.C.No.538 of 2011 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging that the petitioner in W.P.No.11068 of 2008 i.e. the 1st respondent herein, had violated the interim order, dated 22.05.2008, passed therein, by executing a sale deed, dated 22.11.2010, in respect of Ac.0.78 cents of land. The petitioners and the 1st respondent are sons of late Chinna Tavitanna. Their mother was issued pattadar pass book and title deeds in respect of Acs.8.73 cents of land, on the basis of a Will said to have been executed by their father. The mother, in turn, executed a deed of settlement in favour of the 1st respondent. Taking the same into account, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued pattadar pass book in favour of the 1st respondent. On a representation submitted by the petitioners herein, the Joint Collector, the 1st respondent in the writ petition, passed an order, dated 09.04.2008, cancelling the pattadar pass book issued in favour of the 1st respondent. The said proceedings were challenged by the 1st respondent by filing W.P.No.11068 of 2008. The petitioners herein were shown as respondents 3 to 5. An interim order was passed on 22.05.2008 directing that status quo obtaining as on that day, as regards the possession, shall be maintained for a period of four weeks. The said order was made absolute thereafter. The 1st respondent executed a sale deed dated 22.11.2010 in respect of Ac.0.78 cents of land in favour of the 2nd respondent, who is said to be an existing tenant. The petitioners submit that by executing the sale deed, the 1st respondent has violated the orders of this Court passed at his instance. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that he did not alter the possession vis-à-vis the land, and except that the sale deed was executed, possession was not delivered to anyone. Heard Sri Y.Radha Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.V.Subramanya Narsu, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The interim order passed by this Court was in relation to possession. Though the petitioners contend that the 1st respondent has violated the order dated 22.05.2008, the recitals in the sale deed clearly indicate that the possession of the property sold out of the document was already with the 2nd respondent. At any rate, even if the entire property of Acs.8.73 cents is to be treated as the joint family property, the land covered by the sale deed can be computed towards the share of the 1st respondent. The petitioners have already filed O.S.No.317 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, in respect of that very property. The sale through document, dated 22.11.2010, shall be subject to the out come of the suit and without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners. The Contempt Case is accordingly closed. The warrant issued by this Court, on 09.12.2011, against the 2nd respondent, is recalled. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:020.12.2011 Note: 1) Registry shall mark a copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam. 2) Communicate operative portion of the order by wire at party’s costs. (B/o) GJ