VIJAY ENTERPRISES Vs. GOPINATH MAHADE KOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit being Suit No. 1780 of 1993 a chamber summons was taken out by one Madhu Lakhma kakade inter alia seeking relief that the applicant should be added as a party defendant to the suit and the plaintiffs should be directed to serve upon him the suit proceedings. In view of the fact that one of the documents which were used in support of the application being prima facie found to be fabricated document, I directed by my order dated 28.2.2005 the crime Investigation Department (CID) to conduct an investigation about the genuineness of the documents annexed as Annexure "i" to the said order. It was further directed that the CID should find out whether any such school exists and whether it had a primary section at the relevant time in the year 1967 and whether the applicant Madhu Lakhma Kakade was a student of such a school. I further directed that the matter be placed on board on 15.3.2005. Thereafter I directed the Chamber Summons to be placed for hearing on 21.3.2005. On 21.3.2005 after hearing the parties and on perusal of the report filed by the CID. I found that the document is a fraudulent document and accordingly I dismissed the chamber Summons with compensatory cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the applicant to all the three claimants in the equal share of Rs. 3,300/- each. I further directed issuance of a notice for perjury and contempt and made returnable on 12.4.2005. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, an affidavit was filed by Mahadu Lakhma Kakade in which he furnished his explanation that he is illiterate and he further alleged that Mohankumar K. Advocate and one Anna P. Construction obtained the said school leaving certificate and made him file with his affidavit and he does not even know the contents of his affidavit which was filed with the chamber summons. I thereafter issued a notice of contempt and perjury against those two persons namely, Advocate Mohankumar K. and Anna P. Construction also. Thereafter on the report being examined I found that various persons are involved in obtaining the said fraudulent certificate and using the same in court proceedings. On the basis of the CID report and the role each party has performed in obtaining the said fraudulent certificate and using the same in Court, I also directed issuance of show cause notice to various persons. In para 3 of my order dated 2.5.2005, I also recorded another disturbing feature that outside the Court room there was a scuffle between two advocates being Mr. Mohankumar K and I. R. Castellino being the erstwhile advocate of Madhu lakhma Kakad and a new advocate who appeared pursuant to the show cause notice. I had directed the police to take necessary steps in the matter. Thus, by my order dated 2.5.2005 I issued a contempt notice against Madhu Lakhma Kakad as well as Mr. Narsimhan, Sole Proprietor of Annapi Constructions and Mohankumar K. Advocate. Thereafter the CID conducted further investigation and ultimately they filed a report which was taken on record by an order dated 25.7.2005. On receipt of the report, I found that various other persons are also involved in the said conspiracy in obtaining fraudulent document and using the same in Court proceedings. The names which appeared in the report were Ramchandra Shankar kurle, Shankar Kakad Kure, Manojkumr Shyam Devadiga, b. R. Rai and Anant Balu Pawase. Accordingly, by my order dated 7.10. 2005, I also directed the office to issue show cause notice to the aforesaid persons. I have perused the CID report. In the CID report it has been clearly established that the various persons are involved in obtaining the said fraudulent certificate and using the same in Court proceedings with a view to claim right,title and interest in the suit property. The affidavits which have been filed by the various parties indicate the following picture.

(2.) Mahadu Lakhma Kakade being the applicant has a brother called Shankar Kakad Kure. These two gentlemen wanted to levy a claim in respect of the suit property and to establish that they were tribals wanted to obtain a fabricated school leaving certificate of Mahadu Lakhma Kakade. It is the case of Shankar Kakad Kure that Manojkumar Shyam Devadiga who is the builder has given him Rs. 500/- and asked him to obtain the certificate. Shankar Kakad kure in turn asked his daughter who has introduced shankar Kakad Kure to one Ramchandra Shankar Kurle who is the Kabbadi teacher to obtain the said certificate. The said Ramchandra Shankar Kurle has admitted that he has obtained the said certificate. However he states that he obtained the said certificate from one lawyer Mr. P. R. Patel who is no more and has expired in the month of January, 2005. Significantly this affidavit is filed by him only on 5.4.2006. Thus, in so far as Ramchandra shankar Kurle is concerned, he is the person who has obtained the fraudulent certificate and which is not disputed. After obtaining the certificate the said certificate was handed over to Shankar Kakad Kure who has in turn handed it over to Mahadu Lakhma kakade. These two persons thereafter contacted two brokers namely Pawase and Rai for the purpose of sale of their alleged property and through Pawase and Rai they have contacted one Manojkumar Devadiga. Ultimately a joint development agreement dated 7.5.1984 and various power of attorneys are executed. As far as Manojkumar Devadiga is concerned, he is not disputing the said fact. The learned counsel appearing for him has submitted that he has paid Rs. 60,000/- to Shankar and his family; rs. 15,000/- to Madhu Kakad, Rs. 3,500/- each to mr. Rai and Pawase and Rs. 20,000/- to Mohankukar k. Advocate as his fees. All these documents have been produced before me and I have directed the same to be kept in safe custody. After obtaining these documents along with various other documents through brokers Rai and Pawase, Mr. Manojkumar Devadiga has contacted the advocate Mohankumar K. who has been financed by Manojkumar Devadiga and he has prepared the sale proceedings using the said certificate and has filed in the Court. Manoj Kumar Devadigga has however denied making payment of Rs. 500/- to shankar Kurle for obtaining the said fabricated certificate. In so far as Mohankumar K. is concerned he has taken a defence that he was not aware while using the certificate that the same is fabricated document. Though he admits that before him two certificates were produced one bearing no. 15 and another bearing no. 98. However, he submits that he did not suspect that the certificate is fraudulent. He submits that he was informed that one is the Xerox copy of the original and the said original certificate having been misplaced the school authorities have issued the second certificate though not mentioned as duplicate. This so called duplicate certificate even had a different serial number. The school authorities have denied having issued any such certificate. The CID report made it clear that the school authorities have never issued such a certificate.

(3.) In the aforesaid light of the fact it is clear that all these people have jointly together used fabricated document in this Court for obtaining orders from this Court. On the factual position it is clear that fabricated document has been obtained by one Ramchandra Shankar Kurle and has been handed over to Mahadu Lakhama Kakade and Shankar Kakad kure. Thus, the certificate is thereafter being used by the builder along with the brokers and the lawyer for the purpose of moving an application in this Court.