391 of Kondakal Village. They approached the revenue authorities, on 27.06.2008, for mutation of the said lands in their names. They were informed to approach the civil Court and claim appropriate relief. Therefore, they filed O.S.No.219 of 2006 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, naming ‘all concerned’ as defendant without naming any defendant as eo-nominee party. The said suit was decreed, on 06.04.2009. They again approached the revenue authorities with the said decree in the said suit for mutation of the properties in the revenue records in their name and for obtaining the title deeds and pattadar pass books. At that time, the Tahasildar, Shankarpally, informed them that vide proceedings in ROR/ 1254/ 2006, dated 05.06.2006, some extent of property was mutated in the name of the 1st Accused in respect of some lands; and, that vide proceedings in ROR No.1258/ 2006, dated 05.06.2006, some extent of property was mutated in the name of the 2nd Accused. Having come to know about the same, the complainants obtained the copies of the RORs and came to know that the sale deed, dated 02.04.1999, was obtained by the 1st Accused and that the same was said to have been executed by Rashya, the grandfather of Complainants. They also came to know that there was one document in the record, namely, a receipt, dated 10.10.1999, said to have been signed by Rashya. However, Rashya expired on 18.09.1989, i.e., even before the date of the alleged receipt, dated 10.10.1999. Therefore, the respondents 2 and 3 came to know that the sale deed as well as the receipt are concocted and that they are false documents created to knock away the property belonging to them. Hence, they filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code before the learned
