RAM PRASAD OJHA Vs. MAHESHANAND PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition in revision against an appellate order of the Additional Collector of Shahabad, upholding an order of the Land Revenue Deputy Collector of Shahabad under Section 476, Criminal P.C. directing the prosecution of the petitioners of offences under Section 471, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case arises out of mutation proceedings before the Land Revenue Deputy Collector in which petitioner 2, Kamanuj Pandey, and Jaisrani Kuer, wife of Ram Prasad Ojha (petitioner 1), and other persons wore applicants. The claim of Jaisrani Kuer was based upon a sale deed said to have been executed by the opposite party, Mahesha Nand Pandey and his wife, Adhikari Kuer, on 3-8-1943, and registered on 7-8-1943. Ramanuj Pandey claimed under another sale deed purporting to have been executed by Mahesha Nand, and executed and registered on the same day as the other sale deed. Separate applications were made by Jaisrani Kuer and Ramanuj Pandey for mutation; but the cases were dealt with analogously by the Land Revenue Deputy Collector. The mutation was opposed, among others by Mahesha Nand and his wife, Adhikari Kuer, on the allegation that there was no such sale as alleged, and that both the sale deeds were forgeries. In support of Jaisrani's sale deed, certain other documents were put forward by the applicants, namely, a Mahad-anama (Ex. 1), under which Adhikari Kuer purported to enter into an agreement for the sale of the property, and number of handnotes, purporting to have been executed by Adhikari Kuer, which are said to have formed part of the consideration for the sale deed All these documents and the two sale deeds purported to bear the thumb-impressions of the executant.

(3.) Evidence was entered into before the Land Registration Deputy Collector both on the question of possession and of the genuineness of the sale deeds. Amongst other evidence adduced on the latter point, there are the depositions of two expert witnesses, according to one of whom the thumb impressions are genuine, while according to the other they are not genuine, but are impressions made by means of blocks. Both points were decided by the Land Registration Deputy Collector against the applicants, and he, accordingly, rejected the applications by his order dated 9-4-1945. Appeals against this order to the Collector and the Commissioner were dismissed on the point of possession; but the Commissioner also made a reference to the sale deeds in the following terms: There is overwhelming evidence to show that the petitioners are not in actual possession and, on that ground alone, the application must be rejected even though it may be conceded that on the basis of the sale deed, on the genuineness of which two handwriting experts differed, the petitioners may claim a semblance of title.