HARISH CHANDER VERMA Vs. MOHINDER KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 20th October, 2016 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent Mohinder Kumar Verma for the offence punishable under Section 468/471 IPC, the Petitioner has preferred the present leave petition.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the petitioner and respondent are real brothers who are involved in a dispute relating to property bearing number 719, measuring 300 square yards, situated in the Revenue Estate of Mundka, Delhi. The respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction bearing Suit No. 29/97 in 1997 in capacity of attorney of his mother Ms. Kalawati, claiming that she was the owner in possession of the suit property. To support his case, the respondent had filed a photocopy of the Power of Attorney dated 03rd January, 1997 purportedly executed by his mother Ms. Kalawati by which he was authorized to file the said suit. He also filed Sale Agreement and Will dated 25th October, 1992 in support of ownership of his mother. The Petitioner put his appearance in the said suit and claimed ownership right in the suit property on the basis of some documents executed in his favour by one Bharat Singh on 17th November, 1982. The court directed the respondent to produce Ms. Kalawati in person in Court to ascertain whether she had authorized him to file the said suit. The respondent however did not produce her in the Court and opted to withdraw the suit by filing an application. The Court did not permit him to withdraw the said suit. When the respondent stopped appearing, the suit was dismissed with cost of Rs. 2000/- on 10th March, 1999.

(3.) Subsequently, the respondent filed another Suit No.316/98 for partition claiming that the suit property was owned by his late father Ramanand. He also impleaded Ms. Kalawati as a defendant in this suit. In the joint written statement filed on 22nd September, 1998 it was averred that the Petitioner was the owner of the property. Ms. Kalawati also did not mention anything about execution of any power of attorney in favour of the respondent.