Breach of interim injunction makes sale deeds void, and attachment under contempt-like enforcement can cover the entire property.

A transfer made in wilful disobedience of an operative interim injunction is treated as a nullity and cannot confer lawful possession, especially where a co-sharer purports to sell a specific portion without partition by metes and bounds. In proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A CPC, attachment serves as a coercive measure to enforce compliance with the injunction, and the transferees' claimed portion need not be excluded when the alienation itself is void. The HC therefore held that the entire property in dispute could be attached to secure obedience to the injunction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sale deeds executed in violation of an interim injunction were a nullity and liable to be ignored; (ii) Whether, in proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court could direct attachment of the entire property, including the portion sold in breach of the injunction.

Issue (i): Whether sale deeds executed in violation of an interim injunction were a nullity and liable to be ignored.

Analysis: An injunction in force must be obeyed until it is vacated or modified. Where a party acts in disobedience of such an order, the subsequent act is not protected by the alleged transfer. The Court also noted that a co-sharer may transfer only his undivided share, but possession of a specific portion cannot lawfully pass to the transferee unless there has been partition by metes and bounds. In that situation, any asserted possession by the transferees could not be treated as lawful.

Conclusion: The sale deeds executed in breach of the injunction were nullity, non est and unenforceable, and were required to be ignored.

Issue (ii): Whether, in proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court could direct attachment of the entire property, including the portion sold in breach of the injunction.

Analysis: Proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A are meant to enforce obedience to the injunction and are quasi-criminal in nature. The power under the rule includes attachment of property and detention in civil prison, and attachment operates as a coercive measure to secure compliance with the court's order. Since the impugned alienations were treated as void, the transferred portion could not be excluded from the reach of enforcement.

Conclusion: The court below ought to have attached the entire property in dispute, including the land covered by the sale deeds.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to attach the entire land in dispute and proceed expeditiously with the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer made in wilful disobedience of an operative injunction is a nullity, and in proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A the court may employ attachment to enforce compliance with the injunction.

---