ORDER

It is a case of civil dispute has been given the criminal colour by the de facto complainant merely on the premise that the over writing in the sale agreement entered between the accused persons. The petitioner herein is the purchaser for value and he is arrayed as one of the accused in C.C.No.210 of 2018 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Paramathyvelur.

2. To put it precisely, the property held by A1 [Mohanraj]

A2 [Leelavathi] A3 [Manickandavel], A4 [Vanajavadivu] and A5 [Rajavadivel] agreed to be sold by them to the petitioner herein/S.K.Sundarrajan vide sale agreement deed dated 26.05.2008 which is now being questioned by the de facto complainant that this document is an anti dated document to defeat his lawful right over the property which he purchased from the common vendor on 13.10.2011.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that his vendor after entering into an agreement with him on 26.05.2008, later duly executed the sale deed on 13.10.2011. While so, to defeat his lawful title over the property in collusion with the petitioner herein had created the ante dated agreement and had filed a frivolous petitions before the civil Court seeking injunction before the District Court, Namakkal and for a specific performance against his vendors as well as the subsequent purchaser (the de facto complainant herein) before the District Court, Namakkal in O.S.No.127 of 2012.

4. It is to be noted that, the de facto complainant is a party in both the Suits and have contested the Suits. While so, the complaint has been alleged as if the sale agreement dated 26.05.2008 is fabricated with anti dated document in connivance with the stamp vendor and the Advocate who has attested the documents as a Notary and Commissioner of Oaths.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the dispute regarding the validity of the sale deed executed in favour of the de facto complainant pending enforceable of agreement entered earlier is the subject matter of the Suit and the dispute is purely civil in nature. Even if there is any adverse opinion obtained from the handwriting expert, the fact has to be tested by the Court competent which is none other than the civil Court where the specific performance Suit filed by the petitioner herein is pending.

6. However, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant would submit that the said Suit in O.S.No.127 of 2012 on the file of the District Court, Namakkal was dismissed for default on 18.11.2016 itself and the petitioner herein has filed a revision petition, but no order so far has been passed. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant heavily relied upon the opinion of the handwriting expert and the finding of the Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Tamil Nadu, wherein the competency of one Mr.Arumugam, Advocate attested the document dated 26.05.2008 as Notary and Commissioner of Oaths. When the record maintained by the Government for Commissioner of Oaths clearly indicates that the said Arumugam was appointed as Commissioner of Oaths only in the month of January 2010 whereas he has attested the document dated 28.05.2008 with seal showing him as a Commissioner of Oaths also. Further he also rely upon the handwriting expert's opinion which states that the entry in the Register maintained by the Stamp Vendor finds overwriting and the overwriting was done by the same person who has written the word 'S.K.Sundarrajan' and 'Velur'.

7. This Court perused the sale agreement, where the said Advocate Mr.M.Arumugam has notarised in the last page of the agreement in addition to the round seal meant for Notary, oval seal along with his name, “Advocate, Notary and Commissioner of Oaths” is mentioned. The said advocate has signed and with date as 26.05.2008. From the records, there is no doubt that the said Arumugam was not a Commissioner of Oaths on the said date. He was nominated as the Commissioner of Oaths only on 28.01.2010 as per the proceedings of the