Contempt against contemnor proved.

The contemner herein filed O.P.No.749 of 1993 for grant of Letters of Administration with a will dated 5.8.1991 executed by R.MuniMaistry alias R.Munian. Along with the said O.P., the contemner filed consent affidavits of the other legal heirs of the deceased R.Muni Maistry alias R.Munian. By order dated 21.2.1995, this Court ordered the said O.P. and issued the Letters of Administration as prayed for by the contemner herein on his executing a personal bond for Rs.1,000. Pursuant to the said order, the Letters of Administration was issued. Subsequently one of the Legal Representatives of the deceased R.Muni Maistry alias R.Munian by name M.Balachandran filed an application in Application No.872 of 1997 for revocation of the Letters of Administration on the ground that he never filed any consent affidavits in the said O.P.No.749 of 1993 and that the consent affidavit filed therein is a forged one and he did not sign any consent affidavit. On a perusal and comparison of the admitted signature as well as the signature of the said M.Balachandran in the consent affidavit, this Court found that there is lot of difference, between them and allowed the Application in Application No.872 of 1997 and revoked the Letters of Administration. However, this Court felt that the person who filed the forged consent affidavit before this Court and obtained an order of Letters of Administration in his favour should not be lightly dealt with. Hence, suo motu contempt proceeding has been initiated against the contemner.

2. After receipt of the notice in the suo motu contempt proceedings, the contemner has filed a counter affidavit on 31.7.1997. In the said Counter affidavit, he has stated that he has not done any offence intentionally, that he is an illiterate person, washerman by profession, that he is not aware of the consequences and seriousness of the offence in question and that he submitted his apology. He further stated that he filed the said O.P. before this Court for the issue of Letters of Administration and for the said purpose, he obtained the consent affidavit from all the other legal heirs of his father excepting the said Balachandran, that he personally requested his brother Balachandran for several times who finally agreed to give the consent, that the contemner prepared the consent affidavit and sent it to the said Balachandran for his signature, that the affidavit was returned to him after the said Balachandran signed, that the contemner bona fide thought that it is a genuine one, and filed the same into this Court, that he has not done any mischief or tried to dupe this Court by false affidavit and that the contemner pleaded for mercy, in case the Court finds that any forgery has been committed.

3. The contemner also filed another Counter affidavit on 1.9.1997 wherein he has reiterated the stand already taken in the earlier counter affidavit dated 31.7.1997. However, he further added that the property is only 264 sq.ft. in Mylapore, that the said property should be shared equally by six legal heirs of the deceased R.Muni Maistry, that the contemner will get only 1/6th share in the said property, that at the time of the death of his father, the said Balachandran was away from the house and the contemner allowed him to reside in the house, that taking advantage of the possession of the house, the said Balachandran wanted to knock away the entire property, and that the other Legal Representatives are financially poor and to deprive all of them including the contemner, the said Balachandran has taken the present stand that the consent affidavit has been forged by the contemner.

4. The matter was adjourned to 4.9.1997 directing the contemner to furnish the particulars of the person who obtained the signature from the said Balachandran. On 4.9.1997 the contemner was present in Court. However, he pleaded that the person who got the signature from the said Balachandran is no more. In order to ascertain whether the concerned per