CHENNAI: THE Madras High Court has imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on a person, who attempted to grab a prime property at Saligramam from a 66 year-old man by producing forged documents. The sum should be given to V V V Nachiappan, the original owner of the property, before March 28, Justice C V Karthikeyan said last week.
The judge was allowing an application from Nachiappan, who has been battling for justice for over five years, and also dismissing a civil suit from P M Elavarasan, who claimed ownership over the property based on forged documents.
Elavarasan filed the suit to declare him as the absolute owner of the property measuring 3,830 sq ft and also for a directive to Nachiappan and his legal heirs to hand over possession of the property. He claimed he had purchased the property from one S N Padmanabhan and others for a sale consideration of Rs 1.25 crore and the sale deed was executed on April 17, 2013. When it was presented for registration, Virugambakkam sub-registrar declined to register it. His appeals are pending before the Inspector-General of Registration.
In response to the suit, Nachiappan filed the application. His advocate S Thankasivan contended that Padmanabhan had created forged and fake documents, claiming right over the property. He had created a release deed registered in the office of sub-registrar, said to have been executed by fictitious persons. They also created consequential documents. Nachiappan lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police and with the Registration Department. Later, the District Registrar cancelled the release deed and other consequential documents. Suppressing these facts, Padmanabhan and Elavarasan colluded with each other and created the April 2013 fake sale deed. Following a dispute between the duo over the property, Elavarasan filed the present suit, Thankasivan argued.
As a matter of fact, any suit that was based on fraud and forged documents has to be summarily rejected, the judge said. Elavarasan, having come to the court based on fraudulent documents, cannot seek any sympathy. If at all, he can proceed only against his vendor and that too, if he had actually paid the sale consideration as claimed by him. He is a land-grabber and does not deserve any sympathy whatsoever, the judge added and dismissed the suit and allowed the application.