This Criminal Revision Petition is filed praying this Court to

set aside the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the Court of

Principal I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru in P.C.No.1918/2018,

restore the same and direct the Court to proceed with the matter

in accordance with law.

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that on 03.03.2010, the petitioner filed O.S.No.138/2010 in the

Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru against the

3

respondent No.1 and three others for declaration of title in

respect of the land bearing Sy.No.8/2, Martikhyathanahalli,

Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru Taluk measuring 20 guntas in extent.

3.

The petitioner claims that he is the legal heir of

deceased M. Puttegowda as his son. His grandson is Aditya

Jagannath. The respondent No.1 claimed in the said suit that

she is the foster daughter of M. Puttegowda and further claims

that deceased M. Puttegowda has executed a Will dated

07.02.2003 bequeathing the property in question to her and

therefore, she is the owner. The Trial Court has framed the

issue as to whether she has proved that M. Puttegowda has

bequeathed the suit property in her favour as per the said Will.

The respondent No.1 claims that Will was executed on

07.02.2003 in the presence of the witnesses before the

competent Sub-Registrar and the said Will is produced and

marked as Ex.D3. She further claims that Ex.D3-Will was got

registered four years after the death of M. Puttegowda and she

does not know how in Ex.D3, who wrote 8erased9 and as to why

it is so done. The said Will was presented for registration on

4

13.03.2008 and the signature of Ramu is removed by ink after

registration.

4.

The Trial Court decreed the suit and an appeal was

filed and the same was also dismissed. The Appellate Court also

observed regarding the evidence of respondent No.2, wherein it

is observed that it is necessary to note that on page No.4 of the

said Will, at the bottom, there has been erasures with a white

paint and the Sub-Registrar has signed on the same. Evidently,

none of the pages of the Will bear any seal of the Sub-Registrar.

It is evident that the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar are on

the additional sheets and there cannot be any doubt that the

erasure was by D.W.3. It is further observed that D.W.3 had no

business to erase or manipulate the contents of the Will, which

was presented to him for registration and he could not have

meddled with the signature of the attesting witnesses.

5.

Hence, in the revision petition, the petitioner has

contended that the first respondent being legally bound by an

oath

to

state

the

truth,

has

made

a

statement

in

O.S.No.138/2010 as defendant No.1 pertaining to the Will dated

5

07.02.2003, marked as Ex.D3 knowing to be false and thereby

has given false evidence falling within the purview of Section 191

of Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 193 of the Indian

Penal Code. Besides that, the first respondent by fabricating the

said document i.e., Will purported to have been executed by

M. Puttegowda on 07.02.2003 containing a false statement that

he has bequeathed the property in question. The said acts were

done not when it was in custodia legis but, before it was

produced in the Court and marked as an exhibit. Hence, the

revision petitioner has contended that the Trial Court has gravely

erred in relying on the dictum in the case of SH NARENDRA

KUMAR SRINIVAS VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR reported in

(2019) 3 SCC 318 without application of judicial and judicious

mind, as it ought to have done, by applying its judicial and

judicious mind.

6.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would

further contend that the Trial Court ought to have analyzed the

fact by applying its judicial and judicious mind to decipher

whether the facts in that case are apposite and applicable to the

6

present one, wherein Ex.D3 was forged and fabricated not when

it was in custodia legis but, earlier and then produced in the

Court. It ought