Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner is the son-in-law of one Seeniammal, who is owning a House Plot in old survey No.101 A/ 1 A, new survey No.886/5 at Palamedu Village in Vadipatti Taluk. They came to know subsequently that some other persons' names were also included along with the said Seeniammal in the patta at the time of UDR changes. Despite filing of several petitions, they refused to effect changes in patta. Hence, the said Seeniammal filed a suit in O.S.No.72 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai and obtained a decree in her favour. They have applied for patta by enclosing the judgment of the civil Court in the http://www.judis.nic.in year 2012 and after receiving Rs.1,500/- for office expenses, Village Administrative Officer, Balakannan has issued a patta. But the petitioner subsequently came to know that even after issuing the patta in favour of his mother-in-law Seeniammal, in pursuance of the conspiracy with the other accused, he has not made necessary changes in the Registers and that the Village Administrative Officer has only issued a fake patta in favour of the Seeniammal. Taking advantage of the patta issued wrongly in favour of the accused Thilagavathi, she has executed a sale deed in favour of the accused Thangavel. The other accused Thangaraj and Gopiram had remained as witnesses to the above transaction and subscribed their signatures in the sale deed. Subsequently, patta was also changed in the name of the said Thangavel. The said Seeniammal by constructing a house, has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for the past 50 years. The Village Administrative Officers - Balakannan and Veranaghu and their Assistant Rajendiran, after obtaining money, have created records as if he was residing in Palamedu and changed the patta. The accused by taking advantage of Seeniammal's old age, have been attempting to snatch the property by encroaching the same.

jd;ik mwpa[k; bghUl;L rhl;rpfis kiwKfkhft[k;, jdpj;jdpahft[k;, thf;FKyA;fs; gjpt[ bra;jjpy; nUe;Jk;, vdJ jdpg;gl;l kiwKf tprhuizapy; nUe;Jk; nt;tHf;fpd; thjpahdth; rh;Bt vz;.101/1A g[jpa rh;Bt vz;.886/5 I Ke;ija UDR y; khWjyhfp bgah; khw;wk; bra;a;gl;L fpuhk eph;thf mYtyf gjpBtLfspy; Bkw;go nlk; jpyftjp, jA;fBtY, jA;fuh$;, Bfhgpuhk; Mfpath;fs; bgah;fspy; UDR khwp gjpBtl;Lfspy; cs;sJ. nJ rk;ke;jkhf ma;adhh; vd;gth; 2011 k; tUlk; 2 tJ rg; Bfhh;l;oy; OS vz; 72/11 tHf;F bjhlh;e;J rPdpak;khs; bgahpy; jPh;g;g[ te;jjhf kD bfhLj;J cs;shh;. Bkw;go nlk; rk;ke;jkhf vjph; kDjhuh;fs; ehd;F Bgh;fSk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; Bkw;KiwaPL bra;J tHf;F nd;Wtiu tprhuizapy; nUe;J tUfpwJ. nij kdjpy; itj;Jf;bfhz;L thjp ma;adhh; vd;gth; ghyBkL fpuhk eph;thf mYtyfk; brd;W jd; bgahpy; gl;lh khWjy; bra;a[khW kD bfhLj;Js;shh;. Bkw;go fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh; Bkw;go kDit bgw;W nt;tHf;F nd;Dk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tprhuizapy; nUe;J tUtjhy; jA;fs; bgahpy; gl;lh khWjy; jw;rkak; bra;a nayhJ vd fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh; Twpa[s;shh;. nij kdjpy; itj;J jd;dplk; gzk; Bfl;ljhft[k;, vjph;kDjhuh;fSf;F rhjfkhft[k;, bray;gl;L tUtjhf bgha;ahd g[fhiu mspj;Js;shh; vd vdJ tprhuizapy; bjhpatUfpwJ. BkYk; vjph; kDjhuh;fs; kPJ vg;goahtJ Fw;w tHf;F gjpt[ bra;a Btz;Lk; vd;w Behf;fpy; elf;fhj rk;gtj;ij bgha;ahf g[fhhpy; bjhptpj;Js;sJ tprhuizapy; cz;ikbad bjhpatUfpwJ. vdBt nt;tHf;fpd; rA;fjpia bghUj;jkl;oy; gpiHa[ilaJ vd;gjhy; Mistake of Fact vd nWjp mwpf;if jhf;fy; bra;fpBwd;. nj;Jld; thjpf;F rhh;g[ bra;Js;s RCS nj;Jld; http://www.judis.nic.in nizj;Js;Bsd;.”””

15. It is pertinent to mention that when the accused were before the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai for anticipatory bail, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the disputed property situated in Survey No.886/5, was belonging to the complainant's mother-in-law Seeniammal and in UDR patta, another person's name has been mentioned, that the petitioner's mother-in-law filed a civil suit and obtained a decree, that the Thasildar on the basis of the decree, directed the Village Administrative Officer to issue patta in http://www.judis.nic.in the name of his mother-in-law, but, the Village Administrative Officer has not made any entry in the relevant records and that the second accused had obtained fake UDR patta regarding the disputed property and on that basis, the property was sold to A1, A3 and A4 signed as witnesses and that all the accused persons colluded together and cheated the complainant.