“2.The case of the prosecution in brief:- The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kodaikanal stating that one Lizamma Urmese purchased the property in 1968. On 22/06/1972, she sold the same in favour of one Chandrasekaran and Shankar. Later Shankar entered into a sale agreement with Lizamma Urmese. The sale agreement was existing, dispute arose between the above said Lizamma Urmese and Chandrasekaran, over which, a suit in O.S No.373 of 1992 was pending on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul. Similarly, Shankar filed a suit in O.S No.438 of 1992 and a common judgment was passed, on 27/08/1996. Shankar died, on 26/03/2012 leaving behind his wife. The accused persons in order to grab the property made a false publication stating that the document No.470 of 1972 was missing. A complaint was given in Kodaikanal Police Station. The above said publication was made by one Sudhakar. By taking advantage of the similarity of the name Shankar, executed a sale deed in favour of Santhi, on 06/01/2012 in document No.470 of 1972. The father of Santhi's name was mentioned as Shankar. But in the sale deed, the father name is mentioned as 'Chandrasekaran'. Address also differs. Not only the Document Writers, but also the witnesses have indulged in conspiracy. Similarly, the above said Sudhakar is also colluding with other accused for the purpose of committing the above said forgery. Similarly, the father name of Chandrasekaran is also wrongly mentioned. The above said Chandrasekaran also executed a sale deed in favour of his wife, on 23/06/1972. The occupant of the property namely Vignesh filed a complaint before the Kodaikanal Police Station in Crime No.336 of 2012. That was referred as 'Mistake of fact'. Since, it was found that during the course of enquiry, Chandrasekaran was died at the age of 14, O.S No.1378 of 2013 was filed by Shankar taking advantage of the similarity of the name. So also obtained ex-parte decree. The above said impersonation was also known to the above said Advocate namely Sudhakar and Mohammed Mydeen. By impersonating and by creating
