1. MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, MADRAS AT CHENNAI
in
W.P.No: /2015.
1) Er.P.Chandira,M.E,(M.B.A)(B.G.L),
W/o R.Thangavel,E-77, Anna Road, Block-27,
Neyveli-607803, Cuddalore District
2)P.P.Pattappan, Aged 75 years,
S/o Late Perumal Mudhaliar,
98, Naduppalayam, Chittode-638102,
Erode District. -----Petitioner/Petitioner.
Verses
1) DSP,Anti-Land Grabbing, Erode District.
2)Thiru.Vivekandan,Former Inspector of Police,
Kavindapadi.
3) The Principle District Munisiff,Bhavani.
4) The Judicial Magistrate Court,Bhavani.
5) The Registrar (Criminal&Civil),High Court,Chennai.
6)P.Kolandavel,S/o Late Perumal Mudhaliar,
35, AnnamarKovil St,Salangapalayam,Erode.---Respondent/Respondent
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
1. I,P.Chandira,W/o R.Thangavel,E-77,Anna Road, Blok-
27,Neyveli-3 is working as an Assistant Engineer, Highways,
Panruti,Cuddalore District is the first petitioner herein and the daughter
and registered power of Attorney of the second petitioner is sincerely
and solemnly submit as follows:

2. 2) The Late Perumal has four sons namely 1)P.P.Pattappan,
98,Naduppalayam,Chittode-638102.)P.Chinnapattappan, V.O.C.Street,
P.Mettuppalayam,Erode District 3)P.Ramasamy,Kamarajar Street,
P.Mettuppalayam,Erode District.4)P.Kolandavel,35,Annamar Kovil St,
Salangapalayam,Erode Dt.The Late Perumal wife is Srirangayyammal
expired on 31.12.98 at P.Mettuppalayam and Perumal expired on
25.10.99 at Chittode in his first son P.P.Pattappan’s house.
3) Perumal received jewels from Thirumathi.Pavunayyammal
Pattappan and sold it and purchased the property in his name instead of
his first son Thiru.P.P.Pattappan.The properties are in Salangapalayam
and in Perundalaiyur.Late Perumal Mudhaliar cheated
Mrs.Pavunayyammal and purchased the properties and made joint
property.Thiru.P.P.Pattappan has two sons 1) P.Selvaraj aged about 51
years 2)P.Kandasamy aged about 49 years and has only one daughter is
Mrs.P.Chandira
4) Thiru.P.Chinnapattappan has four sons 1)C.Duraisamy
aged about 49 years and he is residing at Vellore with his family
members 2) C.Ganesan aged about 46 years and he is residing with his
family members at Kavindapadi.3) C.Shanmugaham aged about 45
years and he is residing with his family members at KavindapadiPudhur.
4) C.Subramanian ,aged 44 date of birth 20.06.1971 about years and he
is residing at 155A,Main Road,Kavindapadi with his family members
and he has only daughter Mrs.Deivamani is residing with her family
members at Anthiyur.
5) Thiru.Ramasamy,has two sons 1)R.Madheswaran aged
about 44 years,25.07.1969 and he is residing at P.Mettuppalayam with

3. his family members 2)R.Sunder aged about 40 years and he is residing at
Coimbatore with his family members.
6) P.Kolandavel has only one sons1)K.Prakash aged about
32 years and he is residing at Salangapalayam with his father and his
mother Mrs.Poomayal and his wife K.Saroja who is the daughter of
Thiru.Gopalan,Kanakkampalayam. P.Kolandavel has two daughters 1)
K.Selvi residing with her family members at Senthampalayam is aged
about 38 years and 2) K.Sarojini aged about 35 years residing with her
family members at Koodakarai. P.Kolandavel filed Caveat Petition
under Section 148A of CPC before the Court of the Subordinate
Judge,Bhavani on 19.07.2012 at Bhavani through his advocate
N.Kodeeswaran, Advocate,Bhavani against P.P.Pattappan.
7) P.Kolandavel filed an Original false Suit before the Erode
District Vacation Court against P.Kolandavel and which is transferred
before the Principle District Munisiff Court,Bhavani in O.S.No:147/13
with illegal document,forgery will by suppressing the vital facts
happened in Anti-Land Crabbing office,Erode District and the incidents
happended in Kavindapadi Police Station on 28.04.2012 and
06.05.2012.The incidents is more than sufficient to prove the false suit
filed by the first accused against P.Kolandavel.The first accused want to
grab my parents property.
8) The first petitioner submitted a compliant in person on
06.09.2013 to the Inspector of Police,Kavindapadi with several
documents.The Sub-Inspector of Police,Kavindapadi refused to receive
the compliant and documents.Hence the first petitioner submitted a
complaint by speed post from Kavindapadi Post office on 06.09.13.The

4. Inspector of Police,Kavindapadi without getting all the document from
the first petitioner petitioner and without conducting enquiry sent a letter
to the Government Pleader,Erode District on 18.09.2013 with Registered
General Power of Attorney,the O.S.No:147/2013, I.A.No:557/2013,
17.05.99 Partition deed and forgery will dated:02.06.1999.The
Government pleader sent a report dated:11.10.13 which is illegal.The
petitioner submitted a letter to give legal opinion after considering the all
the documents.The Government pleader failed to give reply to the
petitioner.
9) The petitioner submitted a compliant with eighty pages of
documents to the District Crime branch, Erode on 23.10.2013. As there
is no requiry started from the District Crime branch as per the SMS
message from SP,Erode District submitted a compliant to the Inspector
of Police,Bhavani.The sub-Inspector of Police,Bhavani issued
CSRNo:477/13 and has enquired D.R.Purushothamman on 25.11.2013.
The first petitioner has noted the statement given by
D.R.Purushothamman. Subsequently in order to find out the person who
signed her grand father’s signature.The first petitioner have doubted
about Thiru.Subramanian in the case.He is a criminal and his signature
has to be verified.
10) Hence the first petitioner submitted a criminal compliant before
the Judicial Magistrate Court,Bhavani directed the Inspector of
Police,Bhavani to register the case against 1)P.Kolandavel who
submitted forgery will before the Erode District Court on 07.05.1999
and second petitioner received the forgery will through court on
23.09.2013 2) Thiru.Murugan,one of the witness in the forgery will 3)
Thiru.Goplan, one of the another witness in the forgery will 4)
Thiru.D.R.Purushothamman,the writer of the forgery will accepted his

5. offence in presence of the Sub-Inspector of Police,Bhavani in
CSRNo:477/13 on 25.11.2013.
11) The Order by the Judicial Magistrate Court,Bhavani on
28.11.2013 as follows:Petitioner Present.She states that there is a forgery
in execution of “will deed”and that she has prayed for registering
FIR,Hence the Inspector of Police,Bhavani is directed to enquire and
proceed further and submit report.Even though the Judicial Magistrate
Court directed the Inspector of Police,Bhavani to enquire and submit
report.He has not conducted enquiry in accordance with the Principles of
Natural Justice.Instead he got the statement from Purushothamman
contrary to the statement in presence of the petitioner.The sub-Inspector
of Police,Bhvani has enquired 1)first accused 2) second accused and
third accused on 29.11.2013.The Inspector of Police,Bhavani and the
Sub-Inspector Police,Bhavani is supporting the accused and threatening
the approver.Hence the both the police department officials are included
as accused in the above criminal compliant.
12) The Order by the Judicial Magistrate Court,Bhavani on
05.12.2013 without the knowledge of the first petitioner as follows and
the Judicial Magistrate Court adjourned the case to 18.12.2013 with the
additional documents:
Report submitted which transparent that a civil case is
pending regarding the genuineness of will,before the Principle District
Munisiff,Bhavani in O.S.No:147/2013 and that there is no necessity the
register FIR regarding the execution of will.Hence petition filed by the
petitioner is dismissed.The Inspector of Police,Bhavani has not
conducted enquiry in accordance with the “Principles of Natural
Justice.”The criminal investigation is necessary to find out the person

6. who signed first petitioner’s grand father’s signature.The Hon’ble Court
may please note that civil suit is false.The civil suit is nothing but
temporay and permant injunction Suit.The second Petitioner is entitled
to file temporary and permanent injunction Suit.P.Kolandavel has no
right to file suit against P.P.Pattappan’s property.
13. The first petitioner knows the facts and circumstances of case
very well.After the death of Seerangaiammal,Thiru.Perumal Mudhaliar
made a Partition deed on 17.05.1999 with left hand thumb impression in
ten rupees bond paper received from K.Vivekandan, the stamp vendor,
Licence No:5/1997/Gobi, 29, Kannadipudhur,Kavindapadi-638455
signed by the petitioner father and his three brothers including first
accused before Panchayatars 1)M.Arumugham,S/o Marimuthu Gounder,
P.Mettuppalayam 2)K.Ramasamy S/o Kitta gounder,Seraiammpalaiyam
3)M.E.SadaSivam S/o Eswaramudhaliar, P.Mettuppalayam
4)M.A.Ramachandran S/o Andavar, P.Mettuppalayam 5)Karnan S/o
Rangasamy, P.Mettuppalayam written by the hand writing of Karnan.
The Original Partition document is misplaced recently within the family
members. As the family members are stated that the documents were not
with them,the police compliant submitted to the Inspector of
Police,Kavindapadi and paper publication done in the Erode District
Tamil Daily.P.Kolandavel also accepted the Partition of the family
property in Para No 3 of the “Forgery will”Dated:02.06.1999.The
forgery will is created by P.Kolandavel with the help of 1)
D.R.Purushthamman,Cell No: writer before the Tashildar office,S/o
Rangasamy residing at 71/73 Srinivasapuram,Bhavani as per the request
of Samuvel office Assistant of Thiru.Senthilkumar,Government
advocate opposite to the Tashildar office.The statement of
D.R.Purushothamman on 25.11.2013 before the Inspector of
Police,Bhavani is considered as approver. The D.R.Purushothamman

7. stated before Inspector of Police,Bhavani that the forgery will is created
only before seven months 2) One of the witness in the “forgery will”is
Thiru.Murugan who was working along with P.Kolandavel in Sakthi
Sugar Factory,Appakuddal.3) one of the another witness in the “forgery
Will”is Thiru.Gopalan is relative of P.Kolandavel. P.Kolandavel’s son
Prakash’s father-in-law is Gopalan from Kanakkampalayam.The
Signature of Late Perumal Mudhaliar must have signed by the family
members mentioned above to get the benefit from the property.The facts
and circumstances creates the doubtful integrity against
Thiru.Subramanian.
14. The first petitioner submitted a petition before the Judicial
Magistrate Court,Bhavani on 05.12.2013 to call for the records from the
District Anti-Land Grabbing,Cell,Erode District and from The Inspector
of Police,Kavindapadi.P.Kolandavel wants to grab the petitioner’s
property in connivance with some people mentioned above and gave
extreme direct and indirect torture to the petitioners parents and not
permitted the petitioner’s to enjoy their property peacefully by creating
baseless allegations against the petitioners and their family members.
15. The second petitioner submitted several representations to the
Superintendent of Police,Anti-Land Grabbing,Erode,the Hon’ble Chief
Minister,Tamilnadu and other officials. One of the representations of the
petitioner’s father was enquired before the Land Grabbing cell. One of
the representations dated: 23.04.2013 forwarded to Tamilnadu
Kavindapadi Police to enquire and necessary action.
16. The Inspector of Police,Kavindapadi enquired the second
petitioner representation which is forwarded from the Superintendent of

8. Police,Anti-Land Grabbing,Erode on 28.04.12.The statement submitted
by the second petitioner to the Inspector of Police at Kavindapadi on
28.04.12 .The statement clearly proves that the P.Kolandavel wants to
grab the petitioner’s property.
17. The statement submitted by P.Kolandavel to the inspector of
Police at Kavindapadi on 28.04.12 and the acknowledgement dated:
06.05.2012 given by P.Kolandavel to the petitioner’s father for the Rs
1,77,500/ as Baroda Bank Demand draft dated:30.04.2012 clearly proves
that P.Kolandavel has handed over the petitioner’s property .The second
petitioner even though accepted before the Land grabbing cell at Erode
District. He submitted several representations to recover the amount
from P.Kolandavel Rs1, 77,500/. The statement of the P.Kolandavel in
the counter in I.A.No:1452/13 &I.A.No:1453/13 clearly states the
incidents in the Inspector of Police, Kavindapadi is not related to the
case in O.S.No:147/13 is clearly proves that P.Kolandavel is suppressing
the vital facts before the Hon’ble Court and misleading the Hon’ble
Court.
18. The second petitioner paid two hundred rupees fees to the
Tashildar,Bhavani to measure his property on 28.05.12.The second
petitioner received the report from the Inspector of Police,Kavindapadi
on 12.09.2012 under Right to Information Act2005 proves the incident
happened on 28.04.2012 and 06.05.12.The statement of P.Kolandavel
on 06.05.2012 clearly states that P.Kolandavel handedover the
petitioner’s property.The report of the Inspector of Police,Kavindapadi
clearly proves that P.Kolandavel is giving extreme torture to the second
petitioner. During the measurement P.Kolandavel has not co-operated to
measure his property and the P.Kolandavel is giving extreme torture to

9. the petitioner’s by creating allegations. Two months back P.Kolandavel
entered into the petitioner’s property.
19. The second petitioner received a notice from the District
Court, Erode to appear before the Hon’ble Principle District Munisiff
Court,Bhavani on 06.06.13. Then only the second petitioner came to
know that P.Kolandavel filed O.S.No:74/13 before the Erode Vacation
Court on 07.05.2013 with I.A.No:557/3 which is transferred to the
Principle District Court,Bhavani.The second petitioner submitted Pradhu
Vinnappam,petition,affidavit and thirteen pages of document on
07.06.2013 to dismiss the Suit on the ground as false suit before the
Hon’ble Principle District Munisiff as the case adjourned to 07.06.2013
after serving a copy to the P.Kolandavel’s advocate.
20. The suit filed by P.Kolandavel is false, frivolous and not
sustainable both under law and on facts.The second petitioner submitted
Order No:12 Rule No:8 petition to get speediest justice before the
Hon’ble Court by serving the copy to P.Kolandavel’s advocate .The
petition is returned from the court and numbered only Order no 7 Rule
No:11 and 151 CPC petition in I.A.No:1452/13 &I.A.No:1453/13.
21. P.Kolandavel s advocate Thiru.Gnansekaran served the
counter I.A.No:1452/13 &I.A.No:1453/13 and want to submit written
objection submitted in counter.The Petitioner’s father has submitted a
copy application on 25.11.2013 before this Hon’ble Court to get the
details and to submit the written objections to the counter received from
Gnanasekaran advocate.

10. 22. The petitioners are ready to prove that the will is forgery
and created only to grab the property in connivance with other
accused.The Hon’ble Court may please to direct P.Kolandavel to
handover the property as stated in Para No 2 of the “forgery
will”Dated:02.06.1999.The partition document is written by
Thiru.Karnan residing in the same street of the P.Chinnapattappan.The
Hon’ble Court may please to enquire, Thiru.Karnan before this Hon’ble
Court who is the writer of the will in presence of the Panchayatars.
23. The Late Perumal Mudhaliar made thumb impression on
17.05.1999 in the partition deed and the forgery will on 02.06.1999.The
petitioner’s submitted a partition deed before this Hon’ble Court and the
P.Kolandavel submitted “Forgery will”.In the two cases author of the
document must be examined.In order that execution of a document may
be proved what is required under section 67 of the Evidence Act is that
the author of the document must be examined and the witness who have
seen the executants signing the document must depose that they have
seen the executants signing the document.-Hanumantrao Ramarao
Deshmukh Vs Krishnabai,1986(1)Bom CR 50(Aurangabad).
24. Execution of documents-Proof of :If the execution of the
document is denied,the party seeking to prove that the document must
not only prove that the alleged executants has signed that deed,but he
must also prove that the executants had signed the same with the
Knowledge of its contents.-Dattatraya Vs Ranganath Gopalrao
Kawathekar,AIR 1971 SC2548.
25. Execution of –Proof of documents: To prove the
execution of a document it must be shown that the person executing it

11. consciously subscribed to it in the sense that he put his mark or signature
on it after having known and understood its contents.Mere proof that the
person’s signature appears on the documents cannot by itself amount to
the execution of the document-Ramjan Khan Vs Baba Raghunath
Dass,AIR 1992 MP22.Document-when not invalidated-Execution of
document by putting thumb impression by a person capable of signing
his name.But it does not invalidate document-Gangadhar Das,AIR 1986.
Writer of the document-Must prove the truth of the contents:Writer of
the document is required to depose to the truth of its
contents.Omprakash Berlia Vs Unit Trust of India,AIR 1983 Bom
1;(1982)3 com LJ89;1983 Mah LJ 339;(1983)54 Compay Cases 136.
26. The Petitioner submitted a permission to cross examine
the accused with ten pages of additional documents before this Hon’ble
Court on 05.12.2013. The Hon’ble Court adjourned the case to
18.12.2013.The Documents submitted by the second petitioner in
CMPNo:9869/13 on 28.11.2013&05.12.2013 before this Hon’ble
Court,before the Inspector of Police,District Crime,Erode District &
before the Inspector Police,Kavindapadi and Bhavani.The list of
documents in the table is already submitted by the petitioner before this
Hon’ble Court in Serial No:16623/13 Dated:05.12.2013.The list of
witness to this case are 1) Thiru.Vivekandan,the former Inspector of
Police,Kavindapadi.2) M.Arumugham,S/o Marimuthu Gounder,
P.Mettuppalayam 3)K.Ramasamy S/o Kitta gounder,Seraiammpalaiyam
4)M.E.SadaSivam S/o Eswaramudhaliar, P.Mettuppalayam
5)M.A.Ramachandran S/o Andavar, P.Mettuppalayam6)R.Karnan S/o
Rangasamy, P.Mettuppalayam.7)The DSP,Anti-Land Crabbing
cell,Erode District.8)Thiru.Chinnapattappan, V.O.C.Street,
P.Mettuppalayam. 9)P.P.Pattappan,98,Naduppalayam, Chittode.

12. 10)P.Ramasamy S/o Kamaraj Street,P.Mettuppalayam.
11)Thiru.Manivarma,the Inspector Police, District Crime,Erode Dt.
27. In the above circumstances the second petitioner submitted a
letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police,District Crime,Erode
District to take action against 1)The Inspector of Police,Kavindapadi
2)Thiru.Palanisamy,the Writter of the Kavindapadi Police Station,Erode
District.3)Thiru.Ganesan,the Public Prosecutor,Erode District.4)The
Inspector of Police,Bhavani &5)The Sub-Inspector of Police,Bhavani.
28. In the above circumstances the second petitioner submitted a
CMPNo: 10510/14 before JM-II,Bhavani to direct the concerned police
department to register the case or admit this criminal compliant before
this Hon’ble Court and O.S.No:147/13 is false suit for temporary and
permanent injunction before the Principle District Munisiff,Bhavani and
thus render Justice. Even though the copy application was made by the
second petitioner the J.M.-II,Bhavani has not served the copy till date.
29. In the above circumstances the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition
against 1)PDM Court,Bhavani 2)JM-II,Court,Bhavani &P.Kolandavel
on 19.12.13.The petitioner’s submitted a letter before the Principle
District Munisiff,Bhavani to adjourn the case until the further orders
from the Hon’ble High Court.The Writ Petition bundles are not yet
returned till date from the section on our repeated request.In the mean
time PDM Court,Bhavani without giving reasonable opportunity when
the matter is pending with the appellate forum passed an order is not
maintainable.

13. 30) Subsequently the 2nd petitioner filed CRLOP.in SRNo:15141/15
to register the case to find out the person who made Perumal’s signature
in the forgery will dated:02.06.1999 which was created to file
O.S.No:147/13 in the month of May 2013.Subsequently the 2nd
petitioner filed an affidavit in USRNo:966/15 before the Hon’ble High
Court.
31) GROUNDS
a) The 6th respondent suppressed the vital facts happened
before the 1st and 2nd respondent before the 3rd respondent and got the
order in O.S.No:147/13 which affects the 2nd petitioner and he is aged
about 77 years old and his date of birth is 15.06.1948. The 2nd petitioner
was not able to tolerate the atrocity of the 6th respondent in many ways.
b) The 6th respondent fabricated forgery will dated: 02.06.99
in the month of May 2013 to file O.S.No:147/13 before the vacation
court.
c) The PDM Court,Bhavani passed orders in O.S.No:147/13
even though the petitioners submitted that W.P. is filed before this
Hon’ble High Court on 19.12.13 which is not returned from the section.
The PDM Court,Bhavani has not permitted a reasonable opportunity in
accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice to the petitioners to
argue before the Court and caused injustice to the petitioners.
d) The Judicial Magistrate Court-II,Bhavani has not permitted
a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners permitted a reasonable
opportunity in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice to get

14. the copy of the order in CMP.No:10510/14 and to argue before the
court.
e) The J.M-II Court,Bhavani failed to note that the Inspector of
Police,Bhavani submitted false report in CMP.No:9869/13 and
DSP,Bhavani in CMP.No:10510/14 and suppressed the statement of
approver D.R.Purushothamman on 25.11.13 before Thiru.Vijayakumar,
the Sub-Inspector of Police,Bhavani.
f) The Hon’ble High Court single learned Judge in
Crl.O.P.SRNo:15141/15 failed to note the statement of the approver
D.R.Purushothamman that the “forgery will Dated: 02.06.99”was
prepared only seven months before 25.11.2013.
g) The Erode District Police permited the accused to escape
from their offence by submitting false report before the Court and failed
to take action in accordance with law and caused endanger to life of the
both the petitioners.
h) The Writ Petitioner filed before the Hon’ble High Court on
19.12.13 is not yet returned from the Writ Section.
i) The petitioner submitted compliant to the Director,V&AC,Chennai
on 15.01.2014 that the Erode District police are corruptive and prayed
for investigation.The Director,Vigilance forwaded my compliant to
DGP,Chennai on 17.02.2014 for departmental action against Erode
District Police.The DGP,Chennai failed to initiate action against Erode
District Police.

15. 32) In the above circumstance the petitioners are humbly prayed
that the Hon’ble Court may please to dispense the Xerox copies of the
proceedings in O.S.No:147/13 before the PDM Court,Bhavani,the order
in CMPNo:9869/13 & CMPNo:10510/14 before the J.M.-
II,Court,Bhavani and CRl.O.P.SRNo:14151/15 until disposal of the case
and thus render Justice.
33) In the above circumstance the petitioners are humbly prayed
that the Hon’ble Court may please to stay the proceedings in
O.S.No:147/13 before the PDM Court,Bhavani,the order in
CMPNo:9869/13 & CMPNo:10510/14 before the J.M.-II,Court,Bhavani
and CRl.O.P.SRNo:14151/15 until disposal of the case and thus render
Justice.
34) In the above circumstance petitioners are humbly prayed that
the Hon’ble Court may please to writ of certiorarified mandamus or writ
of quo warranto calling for the records on the file of the proceedings in
O.S.No:147/13 before the PDM Court, Bhavani, the Proceedings in
CMPNo: 9869/13 &CMPNo:10510/14 before the J.M.-II, Court,
Bhavani and CRl.O.P.SRNo:14151/15 and on the files of the 1st and 2nd
respondent consequently direct the 6th respondent to handover the
property of the 2nd petitioner forthwith to save the life of the 2nd
petitioner with adequate compensation may deem fit and proper in
circumstances of the case and thus render Justice.
Solemnly and sincerely
Sworn at Chennai on 4th May 2015 Petitioner-in-Person

16. IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE, MADRAS AT CHENNAI
W.P.No: /15
1) DSP,Anti-Land Grabbing,
Erode District.
2)Thiru.Vivekandan,
Former Inspector of Police,
Kavindapadi.
3)Principle District Munisiff,
Bhavani.
4) Judicial Magistrate Court-II,
Bhavani.
5) The Registrar (Criminal&Civil),
High Court,Chennai.
6)P.Kolandavel,S/o LatePerumal,
35, AnnamarKovil St,
Salangapalayam,
Erode.---Respondent/Respondent
WRIT PETITION
P.CHANDIRA
P.P.PATTAPPAN.