Madras High Court
Thankamani vs Chandrasekhar on 27 August, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.733 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.R.C.No.733 of 2018
Thankamani ... Petitioner/Complainant
Vs.
1.Chandrasekhar
2.Kannan
3.Uma
The Sub-Registrar, Nellikuppam. ... Respondents/Accused
PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397
and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 16.05.2018 in
Crl.M.P.No.1305 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Cuddalore.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohanasundararajan
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
The unsuccessful private complainant is the revision petitioner
herein.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.No.733 of 2018
2.The revision petitioner herein/private complainant has filed a
petition in Crl.M.P.No.1305 of 2018, before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore, for the alleged offence under Sections 81 and
82(d) of the Indian Registration Act read with Sections 167, 198, 199,
201, 218, 219 221, 467, 471 and 474 of IPC.
3.The main contention of the revision petitioner herein/private
complainant is that the land in Survey No.209/1 to an extent of 22.68
acres originally belongs to the great grandfather of the defacto
complainant and there was a partition among the three sons of great
grandfather of the defacto complainant, in the year 1972. The grandfather
of the defacto complainant viz., Aadhimoolam Padayachi, Cuddalore
Taluk, Naduveerapattu (Village), acquired his share vide document No.86
of 2017.
4.While the things be so, suppressing above said fact, the
respondents have fradulently sold the land under Sale Deed dated
27.06.1972 under document No.1062 of 972 and third respondent has
also in connivance with the accused 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein.
Accused 1 and 2 are the relatives, whereas, third accused is the Sub-
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.No.733 of 2018
Registrar.
5.The learned Magistrate after going through the records has found
that the property in question in document No.86/2017, manipulated by
the third respondent/Sub-Registrar Office.
6.The first respondent's father viz., Kothandapani Padayachi, has
filed a suit in O.S.No.407 of 1994, before the learned District Munsif
Court, Cuddalore and obtained a decree on 19.08.1994 itself and the
same was admitted in the complaint. Furthermore, on the date of the
pronouncement of the orders by the learned Magistrate, the said decree
passed in the above said suit in O.S.No.407 of 1994 has not been
challenged.
7.Furthermore, the suit in O.S.No.407 of 1994, before the learned
District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, the first respondent's father has
obtained decree and it is still in force. As against the same, the father of
the first respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.98 of 2018, but
regarding the same, he has not produced any documents as could be seen
from the impugned order.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.No.733 of 2018
8.Hence, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that
there is a partition among the family members. Pursuant to the partition
deed, the Sale Deed has been effected on 20.04.1994. The purchaser of
the property namely the father of the first respondent has filed a suit in
O.S.No.407 of 1994 and has obtained a decree against the present
complainant and hence, the observation made by the Trial Court that the
matter is civil in nature, does not warrant any interference by this Court.
9.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.
27.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
dua
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.No.733 of 2018
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
dua
Crl.R.C.No.733 of 2018
27.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
