Producing a false document with intent to deceive the Court constitutes civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

ORDER :

(N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Contemnors are present before this Court. The above writ petition is originally filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvarur District changing the revenue records in favour of the fourth respondent in the writ petition/contemnor No.1. During the hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the document relying upon by the fourth respondent in Doc.No.2935/1974 is fabricated and produced only before the revenue authorities.

2. The fabrication has been fortified by the very action of the contemnor No.1 by filing a suit in the year 2018 in O.S.No.115 of 2018 claiming rights over the immovable properties on the basis of a mere agreement for sale. Whereas, in the later revenue proceedings, he has produced the document as if there was a sale deed executed and registered in the year 1974. Findings those discrepancies, this Court, by order dated 02.04.2024 has directed the Contemnor 2/Sub Registrar, Thiruvarur to produce the certified copy and also by Order dated 08.04.2024 directed the Inspector General of Registration to conduct an enquiry and file a report.

3. The Inspector General of Registration after conducting enquiry filed a report before this Court holding that the document No.2935/1974 originally registered as a mortgage deed has been tampered in the Book I maintained in the office. On enquiry, it is found that the mortgage deed has been tampered as a sale deed in copy of sheets maintained in the Book-I. It is also be noted that during digitization of the records in the year 2018, the mortgage deed has been scanned and uploaded in the digitization portal with the related QR Code that has been established before the Court.

4. The private respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.115 of 2018. At the relevant point of time also, the tampering has not been done since he has relied only upon the agreement of sale in the Civil Court. Only before the revenue authorities, that too, before the District Revenue Officer, the certified copy of the so-called sale deed of the year 1974 is produced. The order of the District Revenue Officer has came to be passed on 25.07.2023. These facts clearly shows that only for the purpose of the getting favourable orders, the document has been tampered. The Contemnor No.2/Sub Registrar, Thiruvarur has also produced a certified copy before this Court supporting the private respondent as if the document was the sale deed. The Order of this Court dated 25.04.2024 in the writ petition reads as follows:

“In pursuance of the directions of this Court, a report has been filed by the Inspector General of Registration. The same indicates that the original document registered as Document No.2935 of 1974 before the Sub Registrar has been tampered and a new document details has been overwritten. And the mortgage deed has been tampered and replaced with a new sale deed. This fact clearly indicate that only in order to produce a false document before the Court, a tampering has been done. The tampering could not have been possible without the active connivance of the concerned officials in the Registration Department and the private respondent.

2. This inference can be easily drawn with the simple reason that the private respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.115 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvarur. If really there was an existing sale deed, it is the normal conduct of a person to rely upon the document whereas claiming right on the basis of the unregistered document before the Civil Court and suddenly relied on a registered document as if it was a sale deed before the revenue authorities and obtained an order in his favour.

3. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that producing a false document with an intention to deceive the Court or any quasi judicial authority is nothing but to get favourable orders. The same definitely amounts to contempt. Even before this Court, a false document was produced. When the S