ALAGIRISAMY Vs. UTHIRAM PILLAI AND KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal by the complainant, in a private complaint tried as C.C. No. 123 of 1983 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 1, Madurai and is directed against the judgment therein acquitting the respondents of offences under Ss. 465, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C.

(2.) The respondents were tried on the allegation that the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as A1) abetted by the second respondent (hereinafter referred to as A2) forged a sale deed executed by A1 in favour of A2, by making substantial alterations after the appellant had signed the same as an attesting witness.

(3.) The facts are: A1 as the power of attorney agent of the owner of the property bearing Door Nos. 26A and 26B executed two sale deeds, one with reference to houses Nos. 26A in favour of the appellant, and another with reference to house No. 26B in favour of A2. It is the case of the appellant that the rights regarding A2 and his right with respect to certain portions abutting their respective houses had been agreed upon by the appellant, A1 and A2, and a sale deed Ex.P2 was executed in favour of the appellant, embodying the rights so agreed to in his favour in which A2 signed as an attesting witness and that a similar sale deed was also executed on the same day, viz., 5th September, 1979, in favour of A2 embodying the rights agreed to in favour of A2, in which the appellant had signed as an attesting witness. The appellant, according to Ex.P2, had the right to put up an east-west wall in the north to south lane, east of the house No. 26A at the southern end. The appellant also had a right to demolish the last step in the staircase on the west leading to the house No. 26B, which was abutting into his land. Ex.P2 was registered immediately after its execution. While the appellant was enjoying his portion of the property and tried to demolish the last step in the staircase encroaching into his portion and when he put up a wall in the north-south lane east of his portion, the same was objected to by A2, who stated that the appellant had no such right as per the sale deeds. Becoming suspicious, the appellant obtained a registration copy of the sale deed executed in favour of A2, marked herein as Ex.P3. The appellant found that quite contrary to the agreement between himself and A1 and A2, material alterations had been made in the sale and executed in favour of A2. The date of execution had been changed from 5th September, 1979 to 28th May, 1980. The consideration had been changed from Rs. 30,500 to 33,500. New recitals were also found in Ex.P3. The appellant found that some of the rights granted to him under the sale deed Ex.P2 were taken away by Ex.P3. The document was a false document made with intent to cause damage and loss to the appellant. His efforts to make the police take action against A1 and A2 proved futile and hence he preferred a private complaint.