Madras High Court
K.Shanmugam vs Subramani (Deceased) on 28 October, 2021
Crl.A.No.280 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.A.No.280 of 2015
K.Shanmugam ....Petitioner
.. Vs ..
1. Subramani (Deceased)
2. Annamalai
3. Swaminathan
4. The State rep.by
Sub-Inspector of Police,
Kanchi Taluk Police Station,
Kancheepuram
(Crime No.677/2007) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 (3) of Cr.P.C, to set
aside the order of the judgment of acquittal dated 09.01.2015 by
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram in C.C.No.170 of
2009.
For petitioner : Mr.K.M.Balaji
For R1 : Deceased
For R2&R3 : Mr.Y.Jyothish Chander
For R4 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side)
1/1
Crl.A.No.280 of 2015
JUDGMENT
The defacto-complainant is the appellant herein.
2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order of
acquittal dated 09.01.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Kancheepuram in C.C.No.170 of 2009.
3. The respondent/police filed a charge sheet in Crime
No.67/2017 alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 468
& 417 I.P.C against the respondent herein.
4. Pending trial, the first accused Subramani S/o. Annamalai
died and hence charge against them stood abated.
5. Before the trial Court, P.W.1 to P.W.14 were examined and
Exs.P1 to P30 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, A3 was
examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R8 were marked.
6. The case of the private complainant is that, as per the sale
deed Ex.P6, the property was purchased by the defacto-complainant
Crl.A.No.280 of 2015
and Ex.P7 patta was also obtained. That being the case, the property
was held by the respondents by fabrication of the document and hence
the complaint. The suggestive case of the accused/respondents is that
the properties in documents Ex.P7 and Ex.P18 were originally
purchased by the persons as below:-
GENEALOGY AND DATES AND EVENTS
Arunachala Mudaliar
{}
{}
Kanniappa Mudaliar-Saravana Mudaliar-Natesa Mudaliar-Ekambara Mudaliar
{}
{}
Annamalai-Ramalingam-Gangadharan
{}
Kanniappan-Arunachalam-Subramaniam
{}
Annamalai
{}
Swaminathan
Crl.A.No.280 of 2015
(i) S.No.17/2-0.15 cents and other properties were owned by
Arunachala Mudaliar
(ii) 05.05.1944 - Natesan Mudaliar and Ekambara Mudaliar sold their
1/4th share each in S.No.17/2 to Chinnasamy and Chengalvoroya
Mudaliar under Sale Deed dt.05.05.1944.
(iii) 17.04.1952 - Chinnasamy Mudaliar and Chengalvaroya Mudaliar
executed Settlement Deed dated 17.04.1952 (Ex.P2 and P3) in favour
of Kanniammal to an extent of 1/2th share in S.No.17/2.
(iv) 25.07.1959 - Arunachalam his son Kanniappan, Arunachalam and
Subramaniam partitioned the property vide Regd Partition Deed
dt.25.07.1959 (Ex.D7)
- Whereunder the 1/2th share in S.No.17/2 was allotted to the share
of Subramaniam
(v) 30.03.1992-Kanniammal executed partitioned deed dated
30.03.1992 (Ex.P5) in respect of entire 15 cents in S.No.17/2 in favour
of her son Subbaroyan.
Crl.A.No.280 of 2015
(vi) 1994 - Subramani (A1) & others formed layout and sold the same
to third parties in the year 1994 in respect of 1/2th share in
S.No.17/2.
(vii) 23.05.2007 - Subbaroyan sold the entire 15 cents in S.No.17/2 to
the defacto complainant Shanmugham under Sale Deed dated
23.05.2007 (Ex.P6)
7. Accordingly, the vendor of the defacto-complainant does not
have title to sale the entire property and has only a limited extent and
patta, chitta and adangal of the year 1994, were marked as Ex.R3 to
R5, to show that the accused/respondents are in possession and
enjoyment of the suit property their constantly.
8. The learned Magistrate, after elaborately considering the oral
evidenec of P.W.1 to P.W.6 and P.W.9 Deputy Tahsildar and P.W.11
Tahsildar and also taking note of the fact that as per Ex.P17 and
Ex.P18 original Sale Deeds namely the parent document, as held that
the vendor of the defacto-complainant has no false title to the entire
extent of the property.
Crl.A.No.280 of 2015
9. After perusing these documents, I find that the property was
belonging to Kanniammal and she acquired the land on the basis of
the Partition Deed and the property was sold to Subbaroyan and the
defacto-complainant has purchased the land of 15 cents from him.
10. However, on a perusal of the parent documents Ex.P17 and
Ex.P18, the S.No. is mentioned as S.No.17/2. Therefore, the trial Court
has rightly come to the conclusion that Kanniammal was having one
share in the property and not the entire extent of property and the
vendor defacto-complainant is not having the title to sale the entire
property.
11. When that being the case, it is a matter of civil dispute and
there cannot be any allegation of forgery or using the forged
document as genuine. Further, the learned Magistrate has considered
the entire genealogy and the dates and events in the documents and
found that the dispute is of civil in nature and records a correct
conclusion.
12. The learned Magistrate has taken a view that the vendor of
the defacto-complainant does not have title to sale the entire property
Crl.A.No.280 of 2015
and hence the view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to
be erroneous.
13. Taking into consideration the scope of the appeal against
order of acquittal and the factum of dispute being civil in nature, I am
not inclined to interfere with the findings of the order of acquittal
passed by the Courts below, which are hereby confirmed.
14. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
28.10.2021
nvi
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order:Yes/No
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram
2. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Kanchi Taluk Police Station,
Kancheepuram
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
Crl.A.No.280 of 2015
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
nvi
order in
Crl.A.No.280 of 2015
28.10.2021
