Madras High Court
Mohan Ranganathan vs S.A.Bheemaraja on 28 April, 2023
A.S.No.10 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 28.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
A.S.No.10 of 2012 and
C.M.P.Nos.19865 and 23815 of 2019
Mohan Ranganathan ... Appellant
..vs..
S.A.Bheemaraja ... Respondent
This Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code
against judgement and decree dated 28.09.2011 made in O.S.No.7822 of
2010 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court
I, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondent : Mr.K.Mahalingam
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned
Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai, in
O.S.No.7822 of 2010 dated 28.09.2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
2 The appellant filed the suit in O.S.No.7822 of 2010 before
the learned Additional District Judge, Chennai, against the respondent
seeking to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs12,00,000/- with
interest at 9% from the date of suit towards damages and for costs.
3 The case of the appellant/plaintiff as per the averments made
in the plaint is that he is the owner of the property situated at No.43,
Padur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, comprised in S.No.223/2, measuring
an extent of 1 acre and 38 cents. He purchased the above said property
from one C.A.Khabeer by means of two sale deeds dated 18.4.2006 and
19.4.2006, registered as Document Nos. 3526/2006 and 3545/2006, on
the file of the Sub-Registrar, Thiruporur. The right and title of
appellant/plaintiff's vendor in the property has been confirmed by a
decree passed in his favour in O.S.No.8667/1985 and in the above said
suit one Mehrunnissa and others were the defendants. The
appellant/plaintiff after purchasing the property, applied for patta and the
same was under consideration by the authorities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
4 In the mean time the respondent/defendant had purchased
the very same property by way of a sale deed dated 20.10.2006 from one
Kasturi Ammal who traced her title from Mehrunnisa against whom the
appellant/plaintiff's vendor got a decree in the above said suit. In other
words, Mehrunnissa who did not have any right or title over the property
had sold it to one Manickam and two others who in turn had sold to
Kasturi Ammal from whom the respondent/defendant purchased the
property. When Mehrunnissa herself does not have right over the
property, no one else claiming under her can have any right or title over
the property on the principle that transferee cannot have a better right or
title than what the vendor had.
5 The defendant after getting an illegal sale deed executed in
his favour, illegally obtained patta in his name. The plaintiff, on coming to
know about this, immediately gave his objections and the Tahsildar,
Chengalpattu, by his order dated 15.5.2007 cancelled the patta, issued in
the name of the defendant. The defendant filed an application before the
RDO, Chengalpattu, challenging the said order and the said application
was rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
6 In the meantime, on 29.3.2007 the sale deed dated
20.10.2006 executed by Kasturi Ammal in favour of the defendant was
cancelled amongst themselves by a Deed of Cancellation of sale deed
dated 29.3.2007 and registered as Doc. No.9228 of 2007 on the file of
the SRO, Tiruporur. The defendant gave a complaint to the police on
5.6.2007 and the same was registered in Crime No.16/2007 on the same
day. The complaint was given against the plaintiff, his brother, his vendor
and two others, as if they only concocted and registered the cancellation
of sale deed.
7 On 14.6.2007 itself the plaintiff came to know about the
above complaint and he immediately rushed to the Sub-Inspector of
Police, DCB, who registered the FIR. In the complaint, the defendant had
mentioned that the plaintiff and four others have conspired and
committed forgery and cheating to grab the property from the defendant.
On the very same day the concerned police took thumb impression and
signature from him and 4 others. The plaintiff clearly understood that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
defendant had deployed this ploy of giving a criminal complaint against
the plaintiff only to harass him and force him to give up the right in the
property.
8 In the meantime the defendant represented before the
Revenue Authorities that the cancellation deed was forged by the plaintiff
and that a complaint is pending before the police. At that time the plaintiff
understood that the defendant has given this complaint intentionally to
prejudice the minds of the Revenue Authorities who were deciding the
issue of grant of patta. The plaintiff submits that he understood that the
defendant was maliciously prosecuting him knowing fully well that the
plaintiff had no role to play in the execution of the Deed of Cancellation.
9 During the investigation, the police had taken steps through
court to send the finger print samples to the Tamil Nadu Fingerprint
Bureau and the sample signatures to Forensic Sciences Department and
report was called for. In the meantime the defendant filed
Crl.O.P.No.1689/2008, before this Court for direction to the police to file
a final report in a time bound manner and this Court by order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
31.1.2008 directed the concerned police to file final report within 2
months. In the meantime, both the Fingerprint Bureau and Forensic
Sciences Department submitted their reports to the concerned court,
stating that the finger print and the signatures of the plaintiff as well as 4
others arrayed as accused did not match the signature and fingerprints
found in the cancellation deed. Thus his name was cleared and the falsity
of the defendant's complaint stood exposed. Even thereafter, the police
did not file a final report which made the plaintiff and others to file
Cr1.O.P.No.10358/2008, before this Court, for a direction to the police to
file the final report. This Court by an order dated 29.4.2008 directed the
police to complete the investigation and file final report within 2 months.
Even in the said petition, the plaintiff and others had clearly brought out
the fact that the complaint is false and the same has been reaffirmed by
the report of the Fingerprint Bureau and the Forensic Sciences
Department. Only after considering the said facts, this Court fixed the
time limit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
10 In spite of the direction of this Court, the police did not take
any action to file the final report and the plaintiff was forced to initiate
contempt proceedings in Contempt Petition No.669/2008, in which notice
was ordered to the concerned police. Immediately on receipt of the notice,
the Inspector of Police, DCB, filed a final report on 18.7.2008 before the
Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu. The final report was filed as referred
charge sheet, after referring to the report given by the Fingerprint Bureau
and Forensic Sciences Department and also after obtaining a legal
opinion from the Public Prosecutor. Notice of referred charge sheet was
also served on the defendant and the same was filed along with the final
report. The said fact was brought to the notice of the contempt court and
the Court recorded that the case has been dropped by filing a referred
charge sheet and closed the contempt petition by order dated 8.8.2008.
11 Hence by filing a false complaint against the plaintiff, the
defendant made him to run from pillar to post to prove his innocence and
caused untold hardship and loss to him. The plaintiff is a practicing
Advocate and by dragging him into a criminal case by the defendant, he
was not able to perform his duty as an Advocate, since he was made to go
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
to the police station very often and undergone harassment. The defendant
has given the false complaint only with the ulterior motive of intentionally
prejudicing the minds of the Revenue Authorities who were deciding the
issue of grant of patta. This has resulted in a serious loss of reputation
and loss of money and time in discharging his duty as an Advocate. That
apart, the plaintiff was put to untold and severe mental agony and stress,
as a result of which he was not able to concentrate on anything. Right
through, the plaintiff was bearing everything only to come out clean and
prove his innocence. The final report clearly brought to light the
innocence of the plaintiff and the malice with which the defendant gave
the criminal complaint against the plaintiff stood exposed.
12 The plaintiff submits that the defendant has given the
criminal complaint against him, without any reasonable or probable
cause, but only with a malicious intention. The complaint given by the
defendant was actuated by vindictiveness and to put fear in the mind of
the plaintiff, to prevent him from proceeding with the patta proceedings
before the Revenue Authorities. The plaintiff has suffered severe damages
both in terms of reputation and pecuniary loss. The plaintiff is a respected
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
Advocate in High Court, Madras and hails from a respected family and
on account of the malicious prosecution he was looked down upon by the
members within his fraternity and his family members. The plaintiff was
not able to concentrate on his profession due to the mental agony he faced
and due to harassment in the hands of police, in the name of investigation
and he also suffered pecuniary loss.
13 The defendant has intentionally given a false complaint
against him knowing fully well that the plaintiff had no role to play in the
execution of the alleged cancellation deed. The defendant wanted to use
this criminal complaint as a weapon against the plaintiff in all the parallel
proceedings and to create prejudice in the minds of the Revenue
Authorities and courts. In the course of doing so, the defendant ensured
that the plaintiff was harassed and put to mental agony. The complaint
given by the defendant against the plaintiff clearly amounts to malicious
prosecution and the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages against the
defendant.
14 The plaintiff issued a detailed legal notice bringing all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
above facts to the notice of the defendant and called upon the him to pay
a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- towards damages for malicious prosecution
within a period of 15days from the date of receipt of notice. The said legal
notice was returned with endorsement 'refused' from the defendant and
thereby he has deliberately refused to receive the notice. Left with no
other effective remedy, the plaintiff has filed the above suit claiming for
damages against the defendant on the ground of malicious prosecution.
15 The defendant filed the written statement before the trial
Court stating that the suit is an abuse of process of law and is liable to be
dismissed as frivolous and vexatious. The suit is a further attempt to
black mail and compel the defendant to succumb to the unlawful claims
of the plaintiff over a valuable property, over which the plaintiff has been
making a false claim, without any basis and has been creating litigation
after litigations. The present suit is also one such attempt. The defendant
had purchased agricultural lands comprised in S.No.223/2, Padur Village,
of an extent of 1 acre 38 cents, from one Mrs. Kasthuriammal, wife of
Mr. Palani, under a Sale Deed dated 20.10.2006, registered as Document
No.9228 of 2006, with the office of the Sub Registrar, Thiruporur. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
defendant found from the title documents and the parent deeds that the
said property had been originally owned by one Mr.Gulam Rasool Sahib,
son of Gulam Hassain Sahib and had a Patta in his name in Patta No.65.
The said Mr.Gulam Rasool Sahib passed away in the year 1948, leaving
behind him, his only son Mr.Hayath Batcha (alias) Ahmed Batcha who
was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The said Hayath
Batcha (alias) Ahmed Batcha died at Padur on 24.03.1981, leaving
behind his wife Mehurinnissa and his children. Mrs.Mehrunnissa and her
children had jointly sold the property to (1) Mr.K.Manickam, (2)
Mr.K.Sekar and (3) Mr.K.Mohan, under a Sale Deed dated 19.06.1985,
registered as Document No.1447/1985 and the said three persons had
obtained Patta No.337, in their names and the same is entered in the
Village 'A' Register. Thereafter the said three persons sold the property to
one Mra.Kasturiammal under a Sale Deed dated 21.12.1988, registered
as Document No.3246/1988. The Patta was also in the name of
Mra.Kasturianmal. Thus it can be seen that the Patta which stood in the
name of Mr.Gulam Hassain Sahib was transferred in the name of
K.Manickam, Mr.K.Sekar and Mr.K.Mohan, followed by Kasturiammal
in the past. Mrs. Kasturiammal had been in possession, occupation and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
enjoyment of the property, along with Patta and other revenue records,
ever since the date of her purchase nearly for two decades. There was no
claim for the said period from any quarters.
16 Kasturiammal appears to have entered into an agreement of
sale of the said property with one Mr.Gokulakannan on 19.03.2006.
However, the sale did not fructify and by mutual consent, both parties
cancelled the said agreement on 18.04.2006. Thereafter the said property
was sold in favour of the defendant, by Mrs. Kasturiammal on
20.10.2006 and from the said date, he has been in possession, occupation
and enjoyment of the property. Patta was also issued in the name of the
defendant, by the authorities concerned. Thus it can be seen that the
defendant, as well as her predecessors in interest have been in absolute
possession and enjoyment of the property, for more than six decades. All
the revenue records stand in the name of the said persons. However, one
C.A.Kabeer appears to have filed a suit in O.S.No.8667 of 1985, on the
file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, along with
certain others, for restraining the defendants therein from interfering with
his alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and certain
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
other reliefs. An ex-parte Decree dated 11.11.1989 appears to have been
passed by the said Court. Thereafter the said Decree has also been
amended from time to time to include the relief of Declaration, relating to
the title of the plaintiffs therein. The legality of such amendments
themselves are questionable. The suit itself is not maintainable, however
on account of defendants therein not appearing before the Court, even
though the said Court did not have the necessary jurisdiction to grant the
relief pertaining to the property outside its territorial jurisdiction, had
passed an ex-parte decree. The said decree does not confer any title much
less marketable title on the plaintiffs therein.
17 Though the plaintiffs therein had obtained such an ex-parte
decree, one of the plaintiffs, in that suit, Mr.C.A.Kabeer alone had, 10
years thereafter, filed another suit in O.S.No.1076 of 1999, on the file of
the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, as certain authorities
and a third party, seeking to adjudge the Decree dated 11.11.1989 passed
in the earlier suit O.S.No.8667 of 1985, as to be binding on the
defendants and to direct the defendants therein to deliver the possession
of the property etc. Even though such a suit was not lawful and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
maintainable, the plaintiff therein appears to have initiated such
proceedings, instead of executing the earlier Decree passed in the
O.S.No.8667 of 1985, in case he had an enforceable decree. The said suit
in O.S.No.1076 of 1999 was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court. The
said suit appears to have been filed without disclosing the fact that the
plaintiff therein had filed E.P.No.71 of 1995, before the appropriate
Court, for executing the decree in O.S.No.8667 of 1985. Undeterred by
the dismissal of O.S.No.1076 of 1999, the said Mr.C.A.Kabeer had
preferred an appeal in A.S.No.555 of 2005, before the Additional District
and Sessions Judge, who had also declined to interfere with the judgment
of the Trial Court. Thus it can be seen that the said C.A.Kabeer has no
right or valid title to deal with the said property. However, the said
C.A.Kabeer has unlawfully created a Sale Deed in favour of Mr.
R.Mohan Ranganathan, the plaintiff, by executing a Sale Deeds dated
18.04.2006 and 19.04.2006, knowing fully well that he had no right to
deal with the property. In any event the said sale deeds does not convey
any valid title to the purchaser. Based on the false Sale Deeds, which are
non-est in the eye of law, Mohan Ranganathan appears to have
approached the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, seeking Patta, for the property,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
in his name. It appears that a reference has also been made to a registered
Deed of Cancellation of sale deed vide Doc. No.3579 of 2007 purported
to have been executed by Mrs. Kasturiarumal cancelling the sale executed
in favour of the defendant herein, to support the claim for Patta, by the
second Respondent. The Tahsildar, Chengalpattu had in a manner
completely opposed to all the principles of law and natural justice,
without issuing any notice to the defendant herein, in whose name the
Patta stood, unilaterally cancelled the same, by an order dated
15.05.2007, in N.C.No.2932 of 2007. The said order is opposed to all
settled principles of law. The Tahsildar ought to have issued a proper
notice, prior to canceling the patta. Therefore, the order passed by the
Tahaildar, canceling the Patta is illegal and liable to be set aside. Upon
coming to know of such unlawful cancellation of the Patta, an appeal,
before the R.D.O., Chengalpattu, was filed to set aside such cancellation
and restore the Patta in the name of the defendant.
18 The R.D.O., issued notices to various persons, who are all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
not connected with the land of the proceedings in any manner and called
for objections, from persons, who had no locus to participate in the
proceedings. After such proceedings, the R.D.O. instead of finding as to
whether the order passed by the Tahsildar without issuing notice was
proper or not, strangely concluded the proceedings, by advising the
parties to approach the competent Court and obtain appropriate reliefs.
The said order passed by the RDO was erroneous and was beyond the
scope of the appeal tried by him. Aggrieved by the said order of the RDO,
the respondent/defendant, preferred appeal to the District Revenue officer,
Kancheepuram, within the period of limitation. The DRO had tried the
said appeal along with a belated appeal, preferred by the second
Respondent herein without even an application seeking to condone the
delay. Such clubbing of both the appeals itself, was improper. However,
the appeals were taken up and heard by the DRO. The
respondent/defendant produced all relevant documents and raised legal
pleas, questioning the orders passed by the Tahsildar and RDO and
prayed for restoration of Patta, to him. However, after elaborately
considering the submissions of the respondent/defendant, as well as
second Respondent, whose appeal itself was not maintainable, by orders
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
dated 16.05.2008, the DRO had negated the prayer of the
respondent/defendant. Such negation was done by the DRO on certain
reasons that are based on an erroneous understanding of the facts and the
legal position. As such the order passed by the DRO is liable to be set
aside and the Patta in the name of the respondent/defendant is liable to be
restored. The matter was also taken up to the high court and after a
detailed consideration of all the issues, by orders dated 21.12.2009,
passed in W.P.No.21450 of 2008 and W.P.No.15851 of 2009, set aside
the order passed by the DRO and remanded the matter back to the RDO,
for fresh consideration.
19 Notwithstanding the above, on a perusal of the certified copy
of the Cancellation Deed, the respondent/defendant was shocked to find
that his signature as well as the signature of his Vendor have been
completely forged and a document has been fabricated. Even the
photographs were completely different and the thumb impression in the
documents also did not match with that of the Defendant or his Vendor.
His PAN number is also not that of the Defendant and is a bogus one.
From the above, it has become manifestly clear that interested persons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
who were claiming title over the property on the basis of bogus
documents had created fabricated, forged and manipulated records, to
show that as though the sale in favour of the Defendant has been
cancelled. The Defendant informed his Vendor, Mrs. Kasthuri Anmal
about the unlawful action that had happened with a view to impeach the
valid title of the Defendant. The Defendant's Vendor also assured that the
signature found in the said Cancellation Deed was not that of her's and
she also further assured that she had not executed the said document. She
had also sworn to a statement before the Police authorities, bearing out
the fact that she has not executed any such Cancellation Deed. She had
also sworn to an affidavit before the Revenue Authorities.
20 Since the purported Cancellation Deed itself appears to have
been made only with a view to get the Patta issued in favour of the
Defendant cancelled and has been done only with a view to state an
unlawful claim as well as to interfere with the peaceful possession and
occupation of the property by the respondent/defendant. Immediately, on
coming to know of such unlawful acts, the Defendant lodged a complaint
with the Police, requesting them to take necessary action, against all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
concerned, in accordance with law. It may be seen that except the
Plaintiff, no one else will be benefited by virtue of the purported
cancellation deed. As such the needle of suspicion was only pointing
towards the Plaintiff and his associates. As such with a view to protect
and safeguard his interest, the Defendant had followed the due process of
law and had filed a proper complaint. Filing of such a complaint, as
against the only rival claimant, nothing but normal and cannot be termed
as malicious prosecution. However, as expected the fingerprints found in
the cancellation deed, did not match with that of the accused persons in
the complaint and therefore, the Police authorities appear to have closed
the case as referred charge sheet. It is no body's case that the signatures
and thumb impressions found in the cancellation deed are that of the
accused persons in the complaint, but it is the complaint of the
Defendant, that such deed would have been brought into existence, at the
instance of the accused persons, since they were the only beneficiaries on
account of such act of fraud. Unfortunately, the complaint was closed as
above. However, from the facts narrated above it can be seen that the
Complaint had both a reasonable and probable cause and had not been
filed with any malafide intentions. As such the same cannot be termed as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
malicious prosecution. Moreover, the matter itself was not taken to the
court and the Police authorities themselves had closed the matter as
referred charge sheet, allegedly based on a opinion given by the Public
Prosecutor. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be called as
malicious prosecution resulting in any kind of hardship or damage to the
Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff appears to knowing the entire manner in
which the Police authorities had investigated the case and had closed the
same.
21 The complaint was only filed in the normal course and in a
manner as expected of a prudent person in the given circumstances.
Therefore, the complaint had neither caused any hardship nor any
difficulty to the Plaintiff, giving him a right to maintain such a frivolous
suit. It may be seen that there is absolutely no basis for the claim made by
the Plaintiff. The matter has been transferred to trial Court, on account of
the increasing of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Original Side of the
High Court Madras and the Plaintiff should be directed to pay the
difference in court fee as applicable to the trial Court, under section 22 of
the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The above plea is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
also being made with a view to point out the malafide intention of the
Plaintiff in filing the suit. Notwithstanding the closure of the Complaint
by the Police authorities, the same is still pending consideration with
another investigating agency and has not reached a finality. The
Defendant undertakes to produce the necessary proof in this regard. Thus
the complaint as against not having reached the finality, the suit is
premature in nature and is liable to be dismissed. The Plaintiff, has no
valid title, possession or Patta for the property in question and based on
an ex-parte decree passed by a court which did not have the proper
jurisdiction to entertain the matter, the Plaintiff's Vendor will not derive
any title. However, the Defendant has also been advised to file a
comprehensive suit, to clear cloud over the title of the property, in a
manner known to law. The Patta issued to the Defendant is legal and
valid. The action of the Thasildar canceling Patta without any notice to
the Defendant is only improper and illegal.
Based on the above said pleadings, the trial Court framed the
following issues for trial:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
1. Whether the plaintiff has been prosecuted maliciously by the
defendant?
2. Whether the complaint preferred by the plaintiff before the police
authorities reached its finality?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages?
4. To what relief the parties are entitled?
22 In order to substantiate above said pleadings of the
respective parties, during trial, PW.1 was examined on the side of the
appellant/plaintiff. Exs.A1 to A32 were marked. D.Ws.1 and 2 were
examined on the side of the respondent/defendant and Exs.B1 and B2
were marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidence,
learned trial Judge found that appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to any
relief as claimed in the suit. Against the said judgment and decree passed
by the trial Court, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal.
23 The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff
would submit that the appellant is the practicing Advocate in the Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
High Court and by virtue of the false complaint lodged by the
respondent/defendant, he was repeatedly made to run from pillar to post
in the manner of investigation. The appellant was also forced to
repeatedly move this Court several times in order to give quietus to the
criminal complaint given by the respondent/defendant against the
appellant/plaintiff. The respondent/defendant wanted to keep the criminal
case alive in order to prevent the appellant/plaintiff from getting patta
from the revenue authorities. The appellant/plaintiff, who hails from the
reputed family, due to the false criminal complaint, for the past two years,
could not concentrate on his profession. Subsequently, during
investigation, the cancellation deed alleged to have created by the
appellant/plaintiff was sent to forensic department and the result shown
that the signature and thumb impression found on the cancellation deed is
not that of the appellant/plaintiff, which fact clearly reveal that the
appellant/plaintiff is no way connected with the alleged cancellation deed
and since there is no truth in the complaint, the police has closed the
complaint as 'mistake of fact'. But during the period of investigation, the
appellant/plaintiff was unnecessarily dragged to the Police Station, which
caused great hardship to him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
23.1 The respondent/defendant with a bad intention to defeat the
right and title of the appellant over the valuable property, knowing fully
well that he has not created any bogus document, has failed the criminal
complaint against the appellant/plaintiff and dragged the appellant to
police station for more than two years, due to which, he could not
concentrate on his profession. Therefore the appellant filed the suit for
damages on the ground of malicious prosecution. The respondent, with an
intention to prosecute and harass the appellant further, had filed protest
petition before the Magistrate concerned, even after filing the charge
sheet. Apart from this complaint, the respondent/defendant proceeded to
file another false complaint through his servant namely Muniyandi and
managed to get an FIR against the appellant/plaintiff under the SC/ST
Act. The above fact was also admitted by the said Muniyandi in the
counter filed in Crl.O.P.No.3269 of 2010, which was marked as Ex.A26.
Further, the respondent/defendant filed complaint to the Vigilance and
Anti Corruption against the appellant/plaintiff and the appellant was
continuously harassed by the police in the manner of investigation and
hence he was forced to approach this Court in Crl.O.P.No.24605 of 2010
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
and this Court issued suitable direction by an order dated 21.10.2010,
which was marked as Ex.A29.
23.2 The respondent/defendant also filed complaint before the
police for criminal trespass and the appellant was harassed, which was
categorically admitted by the respondent/defendant during the course of
cross examination. The apprehension of the appellant that it was the
respondent/defendant who had managed to create the cancellation deed
came true when the respondent/defendant along with the above said
Kasturi Ammal created another document as cancellation of the
cancellation deed which was concealed by the defendant and marked
through the defendant as Ex.A21. The defendant had conveniently
concealed all the facts regarding filing of protest petition and the order
passed on the same and the cancellation of the cancellation deed and the
subsequent false complaints given against the appellant/plaintiff and all
these facts were clearly brought out from the respondent/defendant
during the course of cross examination.
23.3 The respondent/defendant even in his written statement and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
proof affidavit has stated that as of he has purchased only the suit
property in Padur Village and he was bonafidely prosecuting his case
before the Revenue Authorities and that on the cancellation of the sale
deed he suspected the appellant/plaintiff who would be the only
beneficiary on such cancellation, whereas, during the course of cross
examination he accepted that he has two Companies namely B.S.Relators
Pvt. Ltd., and Nibi Realtors Pvt. Ltd., and apart from that he has done
land dealings in his name, his wife and his daughter's name from the year
2004 onwards.
23.4 The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would further
submit that the respondent/defendant purchased two properties situated
in Survey Nos.190 and 2013 at Padur Village in his name and his wife's
name during the year 2006. The various commissions and omissions in
the purchase of the property in Survey Nos.190 and 213 were also
demonstrated with sufficient evidence by marking Ex.A18 to Ex.A24,
wherein transactions have happened between the respondent/defendant
and his wife by creating false power of attorney documents and different
addresses have been given by the respondent/defendant in different
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
documents and photographs themselves differ.
23.5 Ex.A18 did not even pertain to the concerned property in
Survey No.214 and the entire transactions have happened in a hasty
manner and it is only to demonstrate the fact that the respondent/
defendant was examined in detail by marking nearly seven documents.
The suit property in Survey No.223/2 is the only access to the lands
purchased by the respondent/defendant and his wife in Survey Nos.190
and 213 and that is the reason why the respondent/defendant became
desperate to somehow acquire the property in Survey No.223/2. The
respondent/defendant during cross examination was questioned regarding
the decree obtained by the vendor of the appellant/plaintiff and the prior
purchase made by the appellant/plaintiff from the decree holder and the
same is being reflected in Ex.A32. The respondent/defendant was also
asked as to whether he referred to the original document and entries made
in the EC, for which, he replied that his agent D.W.2 only had taken care
of the transaction and informed him there is no encumbrance. However,
D.W.2 during the cross examination has revealed that he informed the
respondent/defendant about the decree obtained and also entries found in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
the EC and in spite of the same, the respondent/defendant purchased the
property. Therefore all the facts clearly shows that the
respondent/defandant aware about the purchase of lands by the
appellant/plaintiff and applied for the patta and based on the same
revenue authorities also issued patta, but the respondent/defendant
concocted the document as if the sale deed executed in favour of him was
cancelled and filed complaint against the appellant/plaintiff. Therefore the
complaint given by the respondent/defendant against the
appellant/plaintiff is nothing but an abuse of process of law and hence the
prosecution against the appellant/plaintiff based on the complaint given
by the respondent/defendant is malicious.
23.6 The appellant/plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he
marked Ex.A1 to 32 and from the reading of oral and documentary
evidence, it is clear that the respondent/defendant in order to grab the
property of the appellant, filing the complaint after complaint and made
the appellant/plaintiff to run from pillar to past and he could not even
concentrate on his profession and lost his reputation among the family
members and even the persons in and around. The trial Court failed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
appreciate all the above facts and the documents filed by the
appellant/plaintiff and simply dismissed the suit, which warrants
interference of this Court.
24 The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant
would submit that the appellant/plaintiff who is the practicing Advocate
and law knowing person, intentionally obtained two bogus sale deeds
from defeated C.A.Kabeer based on the decree dated 11.11.1989 made in
O.S.No.8667 of 1985 by suppressing three suits filed for Declaration of
Title before the proper jurisdictional court. The land grabber R.Mohan
Ranganathan appellant/plaintiff has filed vexatious writ petition against
the respondent/defendant by abusing the process of law and Court and
had obtained an order by playing fraud on the Court on 21.12.2009 and
thereafter again with malafide intention to crush the victim, he has filed
suit a for malicious prosecution. He also instigated one K.Lakshmi to file
a false case against the wife of the respondent/defendant Mrs.Sulochana
Bhimaraja and thereby diverted the mind of victims in sevral ways so as
to escape from his unlawful activities, by abusing the process of law and
court for diverting the attention and concentration of the victims with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
help of erring officials.
24.1 Similarly, based on the decree dated 11.11.1989 made in
O.S.No.8667 of 1985, the appellant/plaintiff had obtained power of
attorney in favour of his wife K.Anitha from the defeated C.A.Kabeer on
06.03.2009, knowing very well that the said decree has already became
Stale Decree and knowing very well about the three suits filed for
Declaration of Title on the files of the proper jurisdictional court and after
obtaining an order dated 21.12.2009 made in W.P.No.21450 of 2008, by
suppressing the above facts, approached the Tahsildar and cancelled the
patta for the agricultural lands belong Mr.N.Kandasamy and
Mr.N.Mohan on 26.07.2011 when they are in possession and enjoyment
over 25 years from the date of purchase of the said land.
24.2 After passing the order by the DRO, during May 2015, the
said victims Mr.N.Kandasamy and Mr.N.Mohan came to know about the
pending suit in O.S.No.159 of 1986 and appeal suit in A.S.No.35 of 2002
and initiated various legal proceedings. Since all the unlawful attempts
made by the land grabbers to take possession of the lands from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
victims viz., Mr.N.Kandasamy and Mr.Mohan went futile, the land
grabbers went to the extent of filing false complaint through Mehrunnisa
against the victims’ counsel before the Bar Council and also lodged false
police complaint with intention to drive out the counsel, who has not
yielded for the unlawful offer made by the land grabbers.
24.3 The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant
would submit that the land grabbers are instigated and sponsored to
various unnecessary collusion parities, to file several collusive and
vexatious petitions before this Court and also before the other Courts and
thereby wasting the precious time of the Courts, since 2011 till date by
abusing the process of law and court, which has to be dealt with by this
Court very seriously with iron hand and by imposing heavy cost on them
for abusing the process of Law and Court.
24.4 The trial Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary
evidence and the respondent has got valid sale deed. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
appellant/plaintiff has created certain document as if the sale deed for the
property purchased by the respondent/defendant was cancelled and
instigated the revenue authorities and managed to get patta in his favour.
Further he would submit that the revenue authority has no authority to
issue patta, when the title is in dispute. Further it is settled proposition of
law that in the patta proceedings, they have to issue notice to all the
persons and thereafter only they can decide the matter. However, the
patta stood in the name of the respondent/defendant was cancelled and
somehow patta was issued in the name of the appellant/plaintiff and
hence due to the strange cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of
the respondent/defendant, the appellant/plaintiff is the only beneficiary
and no other person. Therefor there is prima facie allegations in the
complaint and hence the complaint is not motivated one and it is not
malicious prosecution. The trial Court after considering the entire
materials, has rightly appreciated the evidence and found that the
prosecution initiated by the respondent/defendant is not malicious and
hence the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs as sought for in
the plaint and dismissed the suit, which does not call for any interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
25 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/defendant and perused the materials available on record.
26 The appellant has filed the suit against the respondent for
damages on the ground of malicious prosecution. Admittedly the
respondent gave complaint against the appellant before the police on
05.06.2007 and the same was registered in Crime No.16 of 2007. It is
contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant that the
respondent purchased the agricultural land in Survey No.223/2 in Padur
Villge to an extent of 1.38 cents from one Kasthuriammal under the
registered sale deed dated 20.10.2006 and based on the parent documents
the said property was originally owned by one Gulam Rasool Sahib and
patta was also stood in his name. The said Gulab Rasool Sahib passed
away in the year 1948 leaving behind Hayth Batcha @ Ahmed Batch,
who was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he died on
24.03.1981 leaving behind his wife Mehrunnissa and his children. The
said Mehrunnnissa and her children jointly sold the property to
K.Manickam, K.Sekr and K.Mohan under registered sale deed dated
19.06.1985 and thereafter above said three persons obtained patta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
No.337 in their names. Thereafter the above said three persons sold the
property to Kasthuriammal under sale deed dated 21.12.1988 and she
also obtained patta in her name. Thereafter the respondent purchased the
property from the said Kasthurammal under sale deed dated 20.10.2006
and he obtained patta in his name. In the meanwhile the appellant
obtained two bogus sale deeds dated 18.04.2006 & 19.04.2006 for the
same property from the persons those who did not have title over the
property. The appellant/plaintiff purchased the said property from one
C.A.Kabeer, who claimed title based on the ex-parte decree dated
11.11.1989 made in O.S.No.8667 of 1985, which is only for bare
injunction and subsequently execution petition filed by C.A.Kabeer in
E.P.No.71 of 1995 on the files of the Sub-Court Chengalpattu was
dismissed on merits on 19.11.2007. Therefore the title/right claimed by
the said R.Mohan Ranganathan in the bogus sale deeds obtained from
defeated C.A.Kabeer based on the decree dated 11.11.1989 made in
O.S.No.8667 of 1985 is vanished. However, C.A.Kabeer has unlawfully
created executed two bogus sale deeds in fvour of the appellant/plaintiff
knowing fully well that he has no right to deal with the property. The
appellant/plaintiff approached the Tahsildar, Chengalpet and also made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
reference to the cancellation of sale deed executed by the Kasthuriammal
in favour of the respondent/defendnat and Tahsildar without following the
procedures and even without giving any notice issued patta in favour of
the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant challenged the same
before the RDO, which came to be dismissed. Against the order of the
RDO, the respondent/defendant filed an appeal before the DRO and
DRO, after enquiry without considering the facts dismissed the appeal
and hence the respondent/defendant filed writ petition in W.P.No.15851
of 2009, in which this Court set aside the order of the DRO and
remanded the matter back to the RDO for fresh consideration.
27 The respondent/defendant stated that a perusal of the
cancellation of sale deed vide Document No.3579/2007, it is surprised to
note that the signature found in the cancellation deed is not that of the
respondent/defendant and his vendor Kasthurialmmal, who also stated
that she never cancelled and signature in the cancellation deed is not that
of her and she also made statement before the police and she made sworn
statement before the RDO in the patta proceedings and also before this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
28 From a careful perusal of the records, it reveal that it is an
admitted fact that neither the respondent/defendant no his vendor have
cancelled the sale deed dated 20.10.2006 executed by the Kasthuriammal
in favour of the respondent/defendant. During the course of the
investigation the bogus cancellation deed was sent to Forensic
Department and the report shown that the signatures found the
cancellation deed is not tallied with the signatures of the
appellant/plaintiff, based on which the respondent police closed the case
in Crime No.16 of 2007 as it is very difficult for the Investigating Officer
to culled out the person who forged the signatures. Hence it does not
mean that the appellant/plaintiff was not involved in the forgery and the
respondent/defendant does not have any case at all.
29 The fact is that the respondent/defendant purchased the
property from Kasthuriammal under registered sale deed dated
20.10.2006, which is subsequently cancelled in a strange manner and
patta stood in the name of the respondent/defendant was cancelled by the
Tahsildar and the dispute came to this Court. Further it very clear that
neither the respondent/defendant nor his vendor Kasthuriammal cancelled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
the sale deed dated 20.10.2006. Subsequently patta was issued in favour
of the appellant/plaintiff and hence naturally one would doubt the person
on whose favour the patta was subsequently issued for the disputed
lands. It is no body's case that the signatures and thumb impressions
found in the cancellation deed are that of the accused persons in the
complaint, but it is the complaint of the Defendant, such deed would have
been brought into existence, at the instance of the accused persons. Hence
the act of the respondent/defendant filing complaint against the
appellant/plaintiff would not amount to malicious prosecution as
concluded by the trial Court.
30 It is seen from the available records that several proceedings
are pending and various legal proceedings filed in this regard by either
parties by showing the other party as accused/objector. Considering the
facts and circumstances of case, the plaintiff has to prove his case and he
cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defendant. Considering the
entire facts and circumstances and the oral and documentary evidence,
this Court finds that the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and
dismissed the suit on the ground that the complaint given by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
respondent against the appellant in Crime No.16 of 2007 is not malicious
prosecution. This Court, while allowing the connected matter in
Crl.O.P.No.4751 of 2021 filed by the respondent/defendant seeking to
register FIR against the appellant/plaintiff based on his complaint dated
15.12.2018 for the same allegations made in the Crime No.16 of 2007,
has elaborately discussed and has given reason for allowing the above
criminal original petition.
31 There is no merit in the appeal and accordingly the Appeal
Suit is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
28.04.2023
(6/6)
Index : Yes/N o
Speaking/Non speaking order
cgi
To
The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court I, Chennai.
P.VELMURUGAN
cgi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.10 of 2012
Pre-delivery Judgment in
A.S.No.10 of 2012 and
C.M.P.Nos.19865 and 23815 of 2019
28.04.2023
(6/6)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
