ARJUNA CHETTIAR Vs. NAVANEETHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise the order of the leaned District Judge of North Arcot, who confirmed the order of the learned District Munsif of Tirupattur, dismissing the Petitioner's petition under Section 195(1)(b) and (e), Code of Criminal Procedure for sanctioning the prosecution of Respondents 1 to 3. Navaneethammal the 1st Respondent, who is the wife of the 2nd, instituted a suit against Arjuna Chettiar, the Petitioner, in O.S. No 286 of 1962 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tirupattur, for declaration of her title to certain properties and for recovery of possession thereof.

(2.) She based her title upon a sale deed 21st March 1967. She also relied upon two lease deeds executed by the Defendant in favour of her predecessor-in-title. The Defendant who admitted the earlier lease deed, denied the latter and contended that after the expiry of the first lease, he surrendered possession of the land and subsequently acquired title thereto by adverse possession. The learned District Munsif upheld the title of the 1st Respondent-Plaintiff, rejected the plea of adverse possession raised by the Petitioner-Defendant and granted a decree for declaration and possession. In the course of his judgment, however, he rejected the disputed lease deed as forged, after disbelieving the evidence of the 2nd Respondent, who is the husband of Navaneethammal and who was examined as P. W. 3 and the evidence of the 3rd Respondent herein, who was examined as P. W. 2 and who claimed to have attested the lease deed Ex-A-4. Notwithstanding this finding the learned District Munsi upheld the title of Navaneethammal and rejected the plea of Arjuna Chettiar, the Petitioner.

(3.) It is after the suit ended against him the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 195(1)(b) and (c) Code of Criminal Procedure for sanctioning prosecution of the three Respondents. The learned District Judge in appeal, held that the petition was not maintainable and this finding is challenged revision.