Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P.N. Prakash, J.
Nagaraj - Appellants
Vs.
The State and Ors. - Respondents
Crl. R.C. No. 28 of 2016, Crl. A. Nos. 89, 143 of 2018, Crl. M.P. Nos. 3477, 2059 of 2018, Crl. M.P. Nos. 4896 and 4897 of 2019
Decided On : 29-08-2019
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 464 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 156(3) - Claim it as his ancestral property – Investigation - Cases revolves around of land Village in Survey belonging to one - said property was purchased by one in bits and pieces vide sale deed settlement and sale deed pursuant to which his mother became entitled to the said property - son-in-law of had given him a registered power of attorney to handle the litigations relating to said property - It appears that after the demise family of had shifted away from the village - Heavyweight in village was President of the village and was also President of the local cooperative society - Submitted an application wherein he has stated that land in his ancestral property and that joint name of his father Narayanan and his brother alone figure; there was an oral partition amongst the family brothers pursuant to which each one has been allotted a share in said property and therefore property may be sub-divided and be issued in their respective names –Held, Court had framed the charge for conspiracy only for offence Section and had left out charge of conspiracy for offences Sections which in opinion this Court is too technical because charge clearly speaks about conspiracy amongst seven accused to land pursuant to which they created false documents - Even otherwise accused can convicted common intention animating offenders leading to doing of a criminal act in furtherance of common intention and presence of offender sought to be rendered liable Section not on words statute one of conditions its applicability - As explained by Lord Sumner King-Emperor leading feature Section Indian Penal Code is participation in action - To establish joint responsibility for an offence must of course be established that criminal act was done by several persons participation must be in doing act not merely in its planning - A common intention -meeting of minds commit an offence and participation in commission offence in furtherance of that common intention invite application of Section - But this participation need not all cases be by physical presence - In offences involving physical violence normally presence at the scene of offence of the offenders sought be rendered liable on principle of joint liability may be necessary but such is not case in respect of other offences where offence consists of diverse acts which may done at different times and places case at hand false documents so created/got elevated to forgery as defined Section inasmuch as accused submitted same and obtained order of transfer of with which obtained building permission and constructed building on land which did not belong to him - Therefore acts proved against accused would attract provisions based on reports submitted by Surveyor - As this Court were acting in tandem with who Wielded considerable influence over village administration he being a political heavyweight in village - It is not case of prosecution that transfer order was manufactured by accused - It is specific case of prosecution that issued transfer order which was ultimately set aside by Revenue Divisional Officer cancellation order - Hence there is no material to reverse acquittal of Sessions Court - Since appeal against her acquittal abates – Order accordingly
JUDGMENT :
P.N. Prakash, J.
1. In view of the commonality of issues, the three cases at hand, viz., one criminal revision and two criminal appeals, are considered and decided by this common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to by their respective names.
3. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the three cases are as under:
3.1. The issue involved in these cases revolves around 25 acres of land in Adhiyamankottai Village in Survey No. 867/2 belonging to one Varadammal. The said property was purchased by one T.S. Srinivasan, S/o. Varadammal in bits and pieces vide sale deed dated 17.12.1980 (Ex. P.6), settlement deed dated 22.04.1999 (Ex. P.7) and sale deed dated 21.10.1999 (Ex. P.14). Srinivasan died on 14.11.1999, pursuant to which, his mother Vardammal became entitled to the said property.
3.2. Jagannathan (P.W. 1/de facto complainant) is the son-in-law of Srinivasan. Varadammal had given him a registered power of attorney (Ex. P.1) to handle the litigations relating to the said property. It appears that after the demise of Srinivasan, the family of Varadammal had shifted away from the village.
3.3. Nagaraj (A1), a heavyweight in the village, was the Panchayat President of the village from 2006 - 2011 and was also the President of the local cooperative society. Nagaraj (A1) submitted an application dated 17.09.1999 (Ex. P.3) to Rajangam (A5), Tahsildar of the Taluk, wherein, he has stated that the land in S. No. 867/2 is his ancestral property and that in the joint patta No. 2120, the name of his father Narayanan and his brother Manickam (A3) alone figure; there was an oral partition amongst the family brothers, pursuant to which, each one has been allotted a share in the said property and therefore, the property may be sub-divided and patta be issued in their respective names.
3.4. The said application was forwarded to Manivannan (A6), V.A.O., and Sivam (A7), Firka Surveyor, for their report. Manivannan (A6), V.A.O., and Sivam (A7), Firka Surveyor, gave a report based on the statements recorded by them from Nagaraj (A1), his brother Manickam (A3) and their mother Mecheriyammal (A4). The three statements were marked as Exs. P.8, 9 and 10 respectively. In the said three statements, all of them have stated that the property in S. No. 867/2 is their ancestral property and that they had entered into an oral partition, pursuant to which, they have divided the property. Manickam (A3) and Mecheriyammal (A4) have stated that they have no objection in the issuance of patta in favour of Nagaraj (A1).
3.5. On the strength of these statements, Manivannan (A6), V.A.O. submitted a report (Ex. P.11) and Sivam (A7), Firka Surveyor, submitted a report (Ex. P.12) to Rajangam (A5), Tahsildar, recommending issuance of separate patta for Nagaraj (A1). These reports were submitted on 19.11.1999 to Rajangam (A5), Tahsildar, who, in turn, passed an order dated 30.11.1999 (Ex. P.4) sub-dividing the land in S. No. 867/2 into S. Nos. 867/2A and 867/2B and granted patta for 3.30.5 hectares in S. No. 867/2B in the name of Nagaraj (A1).
3.6. On coming to know of this, Jagannathan (de facto complainant) filed an application before Prakasam (P.W. 4), R.D.O., stating that Nagaraj (A1) had no title to the property and that the Revenue officials had colluded to give patta in his favour.
3.7. Prakasam (P.W. 4), R.D.O., issued notice to Nagaraj (A1) who entered appearance through his advocate Mr. P.V. Ravi. After conducting a thorough enquiry, Prakasam (P.W. 4), R.D.O., by order dated 03.10.2005, (Ex. P.5) held that Nagaraj (A1) had no title to the property and that Rajangam (A5) did not have the authority to effect mutation in an UDR scheme and ultimately, cancelled the order dated 30.11.1999 (Ex. P.4) passed by Rajangam (A5) granting patta in favour of Nagaraj (A1). In the said order, 30 days' time was given to Nag
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
