The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim of forgery and impersonation warrants an inquiry into the offenses affecting the administration of justice, leading to the dismissal of the suit and granting liberty to initiate civil and criminal proceedings against the respondent.

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

The appellant-M.P.Ranjit filed Application No.4023 of 2004 (in Civil Suit No.396 of 2004) before the Original Side of this Court, to initiate action against the respondent-S.Harshavardhan, Chairman, EIKON Academy, under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 199 and 200 Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) read with Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C).

2. Learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated 11. 2005 (in the said Application No.4023 of 2004), while closing the said Application, noticed the order as was passed on 7. 2004 (in C.S.No.396 of 2004), whereby and whereunder, the Court gave a full and complete liberty to the applicant (appellant in this OSA/defendant), to take suitable and proper action against the respondent (respondent in this OSA/plaintiff), either in civil or criminal, also observed that in view of the liberty given as above, it is always open to the applicant (appellant herein) to take appropriate criminal action, if it is so advised and establish the same before the appropriate forum.

3. This Original Side Appeal, having been preferred, one of the questions as was raised is as to whether this Court is bound to take cognisance of all the matters, if any application is filed under Section 195 read with 340 Cr.P.C., or has jurisdiction to refuse the cognisance in appropriate cases, giving liberty to avail of the statutory remedy.

4. According to the appellant (applicant/defendant), he owns about 49 grounds and 1107 Sq.Ft. (approximately) in T.S.No.11/2, Block No.14, Ranjit Road, Kotturpupram, which he received as a gift from his mother in the year 1972; the said land(s) were transferred by him as his share of capital into the partnership firm of M/s.Ranjit Enterprises, with effect from 8. 1974 and since then, the land(s) are treated as the asset of the firm; there are various other parcels of land(s) around his land, which belonged to his mother, some of which were gifted or sold to his sisters by his mother in 1972; an extent of about 43 grounds were sold by the appellants mother to his sister Sujatha Ramakrishna Naidu in 1972; further extent of about 17 grounds were gifted by his mother to yet another sister Sunitha Venkataraman in 1972; immediately after sale of 43 grounds by the appellants mother in favour of his sister Sujatha Ramakrishna Naidu, the said property was immediately given on long lease by her to the appellant; the said lease was given in terms of the broad family understanding that the said property would always remain in the possession and control of the appellant and his father, since they all have a vital interest on the property; all such actions were taken in order to get over the rigour of the then impending Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act.

The further case of the appellant/applicant is that by virtue of the above agreement entered into between the appellant, his mother, his two sisters and his father, the total extent of lands ad-measuring 139 grounds belonging to the appellants mother was equitably distributed among the family members; but however, it was always the intention of the family members that the entire extent of the property(ies) which are agricultural land(s), will be held by each of the members in posterity for the benefit of the family as a whole, more particularly, the appellant herein and his father, and would not be alienated.

It was submitted on behalf of the appellant-applicant that one of the sisters of the appellant, namely Sujatha Ramakrishna Naidu, proceeded to institute two suits on the file of this Court in Civil Suit Nos.289 and 290 of 1996.

In Civil Suit No.289 of 1996, prayer was that the said Sujatha Ramakrishna Naidu should have access to her lands of about 43 grounds situate in T.S.Nos.8 and 11 through the lands gifted to the appellant herein by his mother and situate in T.S.No.11/2.

In Civil Suit No.290 of 1996, prayer was made for a declaration that the alleged renewal of le