IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

THANE AT THANE
Civil M.A No. 1103 of 2021
In
Regular Civil Suit No. 448/2016
M/s. Jai Gurudev Realty )
A Partnership Firm )
Through Its Partner Mr. Umesh D. Thakker ) … Applicant
(Org. Defendant No. 33)
V/s.
1. Shri Dilip Lalchand Porwal ) … Respondent No. 1
(Org. Plaintiff no. 1)
2. Smt. Indira Dilip Porwal ) … Respondent No. 2
(Org. Plaintiff No. 2)
3. Shri Yogendra Ranchodbhai Patel ) … Respondent No. 3
(Org. Plaintiff No. 5)

Affidavit of Evidence in lieu of

Examination in Chief of the
Applicant Mr. Umesh D. Thakker
for and on behalf of M/s. Jai
Gurudev Realty.

I, Mr. Umesh D. Thakker, One of the partner of M/s. Jai Gurudev

Realty, A registered partnership Firm, Age – 49 Years, Occupation –
Business, having R/at – B-202/3, Hare Krishna CHSL., P.M.Road, Vile Parle
(East), Mumbai – 57, do hereby state and declare on solemn affirm as under
1. I say that the Respondent no. 1 to 3 along with (1) Shailesh seventilal
Shah (Deceased) (2) Naresh Nemichand jain (Deceased) (3) Ketan
 Kiritbhai Shah have filed a Special Civil suit bearing no. 448 of 2016
against the Applicant herein and 34 others.
2. I say that The Applicant herein is a Defendant No. 33 in Special Civil
suit bearing no. 448 of 2016 and the Plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 herein are the
Respondents nos. 1, 2 and 5 respectively in Special Civil suit bearing
no. 448 of 2016 (for sake of brevity and convenience hereinafter
referred to as the said suit).
3. I say that the Respondent herein along with 3 others namely Shri
Shailesh Seventilal Shah, Shri Naresh Nemichand Jain and Shri Ketan
Kiritbhai Shah filed the abovesaid suit seeking declarations, injunction
and reliefs against the Applicants therein.
4. I say that the Respondents herein and Shri Shailesh Seventilal Shah
have intentionally made a false statement on oath and used pleadings
containing the false statement, as true knowing well that the said
statements are false to offence against administration of justice, perjury
and criminal contempt of court are made out. Therefore, the Applicant
moves an Application U/s. 340 of Cr.P.C for initiating proceeding for
Perjury U/s. 191. 192 & 193 of Indian Penal Code against the
Respondents i.e. Plaintiff no. 1,2 and 5 in said suit. The Applicant
further states that there is prima-facie case made out against Shailesh
Seventilal Shah. But, he expired during pendency of the said suit.
Therefore, he has not been made the Respondent in present matter.
Brief facts of the case are as under -
(i) I say that The Applicant firm is engaged in business of construction
and development in the name and style of the said registered
Partnership Firm along with the other partners, Mr. Abhay
Chamdimal Bhandari, Mr. Jignesh Dewani & others.
(ii) I being a partner of the said firm, one of the the lawful owner of bona
fide purchaser and well sufficiently entitled to land at Survey no.569
 (old), No.269 (new), Hissa No. 2 situated at Revenue Village
Bhayandar, Taluka and District Thane in the Registration District of
Thane and Sub-District of Bhayandar. The description of property is
more particularly mentioned below –
Survey Survey Part No. Admeasuring Registered
No. Old No. New Area in Sq. Purchased From
mtrs.
569 269 2 1260.00 Rajesh Anant Patil
& Ors.

(iii) I say that Originally, till 1966, Smt. Mathurabai Keshav Patil, Shri.
Janardhan Keshav Patil, Shri. Kamlakar Keshav Patil & Shri.
Sudhakar Keshav Patil were the owners & in possession of all that
piece & parcel of land bearing Old Survey No. 569, New Survey
No. 269, Hissa No. 2 admeasuring 1260 square meters, situate, lying
& being at Village Bhayander, Taluka & District Thane, in the
Registration District of Thane & Sub-District of Bhayander & within
the local limits of Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation
hereinafter referred to as "Suit Property".
(iv) I say that The aforesaid original
i
owners sold, transferred & assigned
the second property to and in favor of Shri. Ranchoddas
Moondasbhai Patel vide Deed of Conveyance dated 13th April 1966,
duly registered before the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Thane, under
Serial. No. THN/401/1966 & simultaneously to the executing of
the aforesaid deed the aforesaid original owners also handed over
the legal, lawful, peaceful and vacant possession of second property
to and in favor of Shri Ranchoddas Moondasbhai Patel and
thereafter vide Mutation Entry No.2652 the name of Shri.
Ranchoddas Moondasbhai Patel was mutated in the ownership
 column of 7/12 extract pertaining to the second property & since that
period Shri. Ranchoddas Moondasbhai Patel became the absolute
owner & was in possession of the second property.
(v) I say that Thereafter, Shri. Ranchoddas Moondasbhai Patel with
confirmation of aforesaid original owners sold, transferred &
conveyed the second property to and in favor of Shri. Anant
Mahadev Patil vide Sale Deed dated 6 th August, 1974, at the price
mentioned therein and simultaneously to the execution of aforesaid
deed Shri. Ranchoddas Moondasbhai Patel in confirmation with
aforesaid owners handed over the legal, lawful, peaceful & vacant
possession to and in favor of Shri. Anant Mahadev Patil & since that
period Shri. Anant Mahadev Patil became the absolute owner & was
in possession of the second property. Later on the said Sale Deed
dated 6th August, 1974, came to be registered by the son of late Shri.
Anant Mahadev Patil i.e. Shri Rajesh Anant Patil. Under Deed of
declaration dated 20th February, 2008, which is duly registered
before sub-Registrar of Assurances, Thane, under Serial No. TNN-
4/117631/2008 & accordingly vide Mutation Entry No.6501 duly
certified on 09.12.2011 the name of Shri. Rajesh Anant Patil was
mutated in the ownership column of 7/12 extract pertaining to the
second property.
(vi) I say that thereafter vide Mutation Entry No. 6617 the names of other
legal heirs of late Shri. Anant Mahadev Patil came to be mutated in
the ownership column of the 7/12 extract pertaining to the second
property & since that period Shri. Rajesh Anant Patil & others were
the owners & in legal, lawful, joint, peaceful & vacant possession of
the second property.
(vii) I say that somewhere in the month of May/June, 2012, Shri. Rajesh
Anant Patil & others approached Applicant’s firm with the intention
 to sell the second suit property to Applicant’s firm. On having such
proposal Applicant by way of abundant precaution took out a
registration search for a period of 30 years & latest revenue records
& after going through the revenue records & registration search,
Applicant found that there were no transactions done pertaining to
the second property other than those mentioned in the aforesaid paras
of this petition. Apart from this, Applicant also issued public notices
in "Vrutanand" newspaper whereby it called upon the objections
and/or claims in respect of the second property from the public at
large but Applicant did not receive any objections and or claims &
thereafter Applicant came to the conclusion that the title in respect of
the second property was clear & marketable.
(viii) I say that after due negotiation & confabulation between the parties
i.e. Applicant & Shri. Rajesh Anant Patil & others, Applicant’s
firm agreed to purchase the second property and vide Deeds of
Conveyance dated 17th July, 2012 & 14th August, 2012, duly
registered before the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Thane, under
Serial No. TNN-1/5625/2012 and Serial No. TNN-1/6334/2012
respectively Shri. Rajesh Anant Patil & others sold, transferred,
assigned & conveyed the second property to and in favor of
Applicant’s firm. Simultaneously to aforesaid Deeds of Conveyance,
Shri. Rajesh Anant Patil & others also executed Irrevocable Power of
Attorneys & Letters of Possession to and in favor of Applicant’s
firm. Thereafter, vide Mutation Entry Nos. 6863 & 6864 the name of
Applicant’s firm came to be mutated in the ownership column of
7/12 extract pertaining to the second property & since that period
Applicant’s firm is the owner and in legal, lawful, peaceful & vacant
possession of the second property. Hereto annexed and marked as
Exhibit – A is Index II & 7/12 extract.
(ix) I say that Thereafter, Applicant’s firm also got a Release Deed dated
14th December, 2012, executed in its favor from the Estate
Investment Company Pvt. Ltd., who is the superior holder of the
second property which is duly registered before the Sub-Registrar
of Assurances, Thane, under Serial No. TNN-7/8621/2012. The
Applicant also approached the superior holder of the second
property i.e. the Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd., & obtained
the NOC for N.A. Development Permission pertaining to the
second property from the Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd.,
vide letter dated- 17.09.2012 & further Applicant’s firm also
obtained NOC for carrying out survey & demarcation of the second
property vide its letter elated - 17.06.2015.
(x) I say that after execution of Conveyance Deed in favour of the
Applicant’s Firm, The Applicant approached to the office of Talathi
and other revenue offices for recording their name in7/12 extract and
other revenue record. After name of the Applicant’s firm recorded in
7/12 extract and other revenue records, the Applicant applied to the
Corporation (M.B.M.C) for providing road access to the said
properties vide Letter dated 07.01.2013. Pursuant to the said letter by
the Applicant, the Corporation provided road facility to the said
properties. It is pertinent to note that the said access has been
provided because it was applied for by the real owner i.e the
Applicant otherwise no such road access can be granted without
permission of the Land owner.
(xi) I say that after obtaining the necessary NOC from the Estate
Investment Company Pvt. Ltd., Applicant’s firm approached the
office of District Inspector of Land Records (D.I.L.R) for the
purpose of carrying out survey & demarcation pertaining to the said
properties & accordingly the District Inspector of Land Records
 carried out the survey of the said properties & demarcated. the
boundaries of the said properties & issued letter to that effect on
29.07.2015 along with the survey map bearing M.R.
No.7853.2015 dated – 08.07.2015. After the demarcation &
survey of the suit properties, Applicant’s firm constructed a
compound wall made up of tin sheet surrounding the said properties
so as to protect it from encroachment & also installed its name
board over the said properties.
(xii) I say that Simultaneously while doing the aforesaid acts Applicant’s
firm through its Architect Tej's Consultant submitted plans for
sanction of development over the suit properties and had also
preferred an application dated 24.07.2015 to Mira - Bhayander
Municipal Corporation for obtaining N.A.NOC in respect of the suit
properties & had also started procedure before the Revenue
Authority for exemption of conversion of suit properties under
Section 42A (l)(a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
(xiii) I say that Thereafter, vide letter dated 01/10/2015, the MBMC
Commissioner addressed a letter to the Collector to proceed with the
N.A. (Non – agriculture) permission pertaining to the suit properties
on the basis of relevant documents along with panchnama. A
panchnama of the said property was duly conducted on 15.10.2015
by the Talathi of Bhayander vide no.681/2015-2016, reflecting the
possession of the said firm on the said property. The said panchnama
clearly states that the said property was free from any
encroachments. Thereafter a procedure was initiated before the
Revenue Authority for exemption of conversion of suit properties
under Section 42A (l) (a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,
1966 & accordingly Tehsildar, Thane, passed Order bearing No.
Revenue/K-1/T-2/Land/K/V/9535/SR/IB/56/2016 dated 06.06.2016
 and ultimately on 07.06.2016 Applicant’s firm paid an amount of
Rs. 21,175/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand One Hundred and
Seventy Five only) vide cheque bearing No. 490398 drawn on
Karnataka Bank Ltd., in favor of the Government revenue
department towards the use of suit properties for non-agricultural
purpose.
(xiv) I say that the Respondents instituted the present suit for Declaration
and permanent injunction against the Applicants including the
present Applicant. The Respondent no. 3 has sought relief from the
court that he be declared as Owner of the suit property and the
Repondent no. 1, 2, Late Shailesh Seventilal Shah and Late Naresh
Nemichand Jain have sought declaration from that court that they
have absolute right and authority to develop the suit property and
also sought declaration against the Original Petitioner Nos. 1 to 32
and the present applicant herein that they have no right, title and
interest in the suit property along therewith sought other
declarations, relief and injunction. The Plaint was duly signed by all
Respondents and supported by an affidavit sworn by the Respondent
no. 1 which was stated to be true to personal knowledge. In
paragraph No. 7 of the Plaint, it is stated that Late Shailesh
Seventilal Shah and Late Naresh Nemichand Jain had entered into a
Joint Venture Agreement with the Respondent no. 1 and 2 to develop
several properties inter-alia the suit property by constructing thereon
jointly in the name and style of “Leena Associates”.
(xv) Recently, From reliable resources, the Applicant came to know that
there has been a dispute going on between the respondent No. 1, 2 &
Shri. Shailesh Shah in respect of several properties including the suit
properties on ground that On 16.07.2004, Late Shailesh Seventilal
Shah, Late Naresh Nemichand Jain and the Respondent No. 1 & 2
 herein entered into Joint Venture Agreement dated 16/07/2004 in
respect of the suit properties inter-alia other property. While entering
into said Joint Venture Agreement dated 16.07.2004, Shri. Shailesh
Shah represented to the Respondent No. 1 herein that he has absolute
right to enter into said agreement with them. There is no legal
dispute in respect of the said property. Shri Shailesh has possession
of the said properties and said properties have not previously sold to
anyone. Thereafter, The Respondent no. 1 & 2 came to know from
the 7/12 extract and other revenue records that there were other
person’s names mentioned in 7/12 extract. The name of Shri
Shailesh Shah was not mentioned therein. Upon inquiry, it found out
that Shri Shailesh Shah never had right, title, interest in the suit
properties and Shri. Shailesh Shah with help of original landlord sold
out the said properties to other party/ies and still he entered into Joint
Venture Agreement dated 16.07.2004 and cheated him with lacs of
rupees. Therefore, The Respondent No. 1 had filed regular criminal
Case against Shri Shailesh Shah.
(xvi) Following to information, The Applicant gathered more information
and finally learnt about filing of Regular Criminal case by the
Respondent No. 1 against Late Shailesh Shah for cheating in respect
of the suit property before Ld. J.M.F.C, Thane. Thereafter, the
Applicant took out certify copy of the said criminal case bearing no.
1678/2014 on 30/03/2021. The Respondents of Grabbing the suit
properties became clear when the Applicant obtained copy of regular
criminal case bearing No. 1678 of 2014 filed by The Respondent no.
1 against Late Shailesh Seventilal Shah for committing commission
of offence u/s. 420 and 406 before J.M.F.C Court, Thane. Upon
perusal of the said complaint, It revealed that On 16.07.2004, Late
Shailesh Seventilal Shah and Dilip Porwal (the Respondent no. 1) his
wife Indira Porwal (the Respondents No. 2) entered into Joint
Venture Agreement in respect of the suit properties inter-alia other
property. Thereafter, The Respondent no. 1 came to know from the
7/12 extract and other revenue records that Late Shailesh Seventilal
Shah and Late Naresh Nemichand Jain had no right, title, interest in
the suit properties still he entered into Joint Venture Agreement
dated 16.07.2004 and cheated him with lacs of rupees. The
Respondent no. 1 informed to Bhayander Police Station regarding
the same vide Written Complaint dated 08.11.2014. Thereafter, he
preferred to move abovesaid Regular criminal case bearing No. 1678
of 2014 against Late Shailesh Seventilal Shah. In said matter, The
Hon’ble court had issued order u/s. 202 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, The
Senior Inspector of Bhayander Police Station, Mr. Bhaskar Bhukhle
made an inquiry and investigation in said matter and filed report
made u/s. 202 of Cr.P.C with Ld. J.M.F.C, Thane vide. Report dated
07.07.2015 bearing out ward No. 3635/2015. As per the said report,
after investigation it was concluded by the senior Police Inspector
that Late Shailesh Seventilal Shah has committed offence. Therefore,
legal action may be initiated against him. From abovesaid facts, it
proves that since the year 2014, The Respondent no. 1 had
knowledge that Joint Venture Agreement dated 16.07.2004 executed
with Late Shailesh Seventilal Shah in respect of the properties
including the suit properties mentioned in the said agreement does
not confer any right, title, share and interest upon him in respect of
the suit properties as same is void-ab-initio as Late Shailesh
Seventilal Shah had no right to enter into agreement with him in
respect of the suit properties.
But, in order to grab the suit properties, he filed frivolous, false
and bogus cases, complaints and applications before the Authorities
 and court inter-alia claiming his alleged rights in the suit properties
thereby given false information and misled to such authorities and
courts which is amounting to serious offence of Perjury and also
made a false claim in suit properties to affect the right of the
Applicant in properties for his own interest and benefit. (Hereto
annexed and marked as Exh. B is a certified copy of Regular
Criminal Case No. 1678 of 2014 filed by Mr. Dilip Porwal [the
Respondent no. 1] against Mr. Shailesh Shah before J.M.F.C,
Thane.)
(xvii) I say that The Respondent no. 3 has sought relief from the court that
he be declared as Owner of the suit property. But, I say that all
agreements, deeds and documents relied upon by the Respondents
pertaining to the suit property are fabricated and bogus. Moreover,
the said agreements, deeds and documents are unregistered and not
duly stamped as required under Indian Stamp Act and Registration
Act, 1905. It is to be noted that that Mutation entry no. 5234 (hakka
che patra) dated 18/09/1991 was made upon the application given by
Shri. Surendra Ranchodbhai Patel (one of the legal heir of Late
Ranchodbhai Patel). it is recorded in the said mutation entry that as
per their internal family arrangement/partition, the property of his
father at village Goddev and navghar has been given to his mother
and three brothers and the land property at Village Bhayander has
come within the share of Shri. Pravin Ranchodbai Patel. The land
properties described in the said mutation entries are bearing no.
Survey no. 107/2, 107/4, 214/2A, 270/3, 268/9, 268/10, 268/11,
277/1, 87/2(pt.), 275/4 which makes it clear that the said property i.e.
lands bearing Old Survey No.- 569, New Survey No.- 269, Hissa
No.-2 area admeasuring 1260 square meters is not anywhere
described because they were aware that the said property has already
been sold by their father to Mr. Anant Mahadev Patil. Therefore, the
said property was not became part of the properties divided by them
within their family. So it further becomes clear that Shri Pravin
Ranchodbhai Patel was also never entitled to make or execute any
documents pertaining to the said land property i.e. lands bearing Old
Survey No - 569, New Survey No. 269, Hissa No. 2 area
admeasuring 1260 square meters.
Any documents made by Shri Pravin Ranchodbhai in respect of
said property in favour of any third party is completely false,
fabricated, bogus and not maintainable in eyes of law. Therefore, this
said documents are not admissible and maintainable in eyes of law.
The Applicant further states that as per mutation entry no. 5234
dated 18/09/1991, the land property at Bhayander never came within
the share of Yogendra Ranchod bhai Patel as per partition of
property effected within heirs of late Ranchodbhai Patel. However,
the Respondents have made false & frivolous claim that by virtue of
partition-cum-family settlement, dated 11th April 1991 effected
amongst the heirs of late Ranchodbhai Patel, the suit property came
to be apportioned to the share of the Respondent no. 3, who is one of
the sons of late Shri Ranchodbhai Mundasbhai Patel and
accordingly, the possession of the suit property came in the hands of
the Respondent no. 3 namely Yogendra Ranchodbhai Patel.
It is pertinent to note that mutation entry no. 5234 recorded on
dated 18/09/1991, the survey number and hissa number of the suit
property is not mentioned which is sufficient proof that the suit
property had never came within share of any of legal heirs of
Ranchodbhai Patel. Therefore, the question of execution of
unregistered Agreement for sale, dated 16th October 1993 between
the Respondent no. 3 (Org. Plaintiff No. 5) and Shri Ketan Kirtibhai
 Shah (Org. Plaintiff No. 6), Irrevocable Power of Attorney, dated
16th October 1993 in favour of Shri Ketan Kiritbhai Shah (Org.
Plaintiff No. 6); the unregistered Agreement for sale cum
Development, dated 16th April, 1994 made between Shri Ketan
Kiritbhai Shah (Org. Plaintiff No. 6) and Late Shailesh Seventilal
Shah (Org. Plaintiff No. 3); the Unregistered Agreement dated 13 th
July, 2004 made between Late Shailesh Seventilal Shah and Late
Naresh Nemichand Jain; the Joint venture agreement executed
between Late Shailesh Seventilal Shah, Late Naresh Nemichand Jain
and the Respondent no. 1 & 2 herein does not arise at all. From the
abovesaid facts, it becomes clear that the said unregistered
agreements, Power of Attorney are false, frivolous, fabricated,
baseless, bogus and void-ab-initio. Such unregistered and bogus
agreements are not tenable and have no value in eyes of law.
(Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “C” is a mutation entry
no. 5233 and 5234 recorded on dated 18/09/1991.). Moreover, in
spite, the Respondents has a knowledge about existence of right of
the Applicant in suit property deliberately challenged the rights of
the Applicants in suit property in order to grab the same from the
Applicant.
(xviii) I say that in para no. 6 of the Plaint, the Respondents has allegedly
claimed that “the total holding of heirs of late Ranchodbhai Patel
including the Respondent no. 3 was more than the ceiling limit as
provided under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
(since repealed). Hence, in the year 1994, Shri Surendra
Ranchodbhai Patel for self and on behalf of other legal heirs of late
Ranchodbhai Patel had made an application to the Addl. Collector
and Competent Authority, Thane to obtain the permission under
section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to
develop several properties inter-alia the suit property. Pursuant to an
application made by Shri Surendra Ranchodbhai Patel, the Addl.
Collector and Competent Authority, Thane had granted permission
to develop several properties inter-alia the suit property to the heirs
of late Ranchodbhai Patel vide an Order No.
ULC/TA/WSHS-20/SR-856 dated 29th March, 1995.
However, as per Mutation entry no. 5233 & 5234 (hakka che patra)
dated 18/09/1991 was made upon the application given by Shri.
Surendra Ranchodbhai Patel (one of the legal heir of Late
Ranchodbhai Patel). It is recorded in the said mutation entry that as
per their internal family arrangement/partition, the property of his
father at village Goddev and Navghar has been given to his mother
and three brothers and the land property at Village Bhayander has
come within the share of Shri. Pravin Ranchodbai Patel. The land
properties described in the said mutation entries are bearing no.
Survey no. 107/2, 107/4, 214/2A, 270/3, 268/9, 268/10, 268/11,
277/1, 87/2(pt.), 275/4 which makes it clear that the said property i.e.
lands bearing Old Survey No.- 569, New Survey No.- 269, Hissa
No.-2 area admeasuring 1260 square meters is not anywhere
described because they were aware that the said property has already
been sold by their father to Mr. Anant Mahadev Patil. Therefore, the
rights and interest in suit property never acquired by Surendra
Ranchodbhai Patel, Pravin Ranchodbai Patel and/or any of the legal
heirs of Late Ranchodbai Patel. Moreover, The Respondents have
deliberately nor produced copy of Order No.
ULC/TA/WSHS-20/SR-856 dated 29th March, 1995 because no such
application was made by Surendra Ranchodbhai Patel to the Addl.
Collector and Competent Authority, Thane in respect of the suit
property. From the information received under Right to Information
 Act under RTI Appeal No. 11/2018/582-583 dated 30/11/2018, there
is one application bearing Yojna No. S R 856 dated 29/03/1995
made to the Addl. Collector and Competent Authority, Thane by Shri
Pravin Ranchodbhai Patel. However, in said application there is a
reference of property bearing old survey no. 573/3, 678/4, 575/8, 9,
10, 11 corresponding new survey no. 270/3, 275/4, 268/8, 9, 10, 11
but there is no reference about the suit property because upon the
death of Shri Ranchodbhai Patel, the suit property was never
inherited by his heirs since same was sold to Shri Anant Mahadev
Patil during his lifetime and his heirs are well acquainted with the
said fact. Later on, the Respondents mischievously, fraudulently with
assistance of their Architect M/s. Anish & Associates made an
application to concerned department to incorporate suit property in
said yojanan vide Application dated 04/05/2007. From the
abovesaid facts, to become clear that the Respondents has made a
false statement in court & knowingly, deliberately not produced the
Application and Order No. ULC/TA/WSHS-20/SR-856 dated 29 th
March, 1995 before the court in order to mislead the court.
Moreover, there is a FIR registered against Late Shailesh Seventilal
Shah for ULC scam in which he was arrested by the Police.
(xix) As per revenue record and mutation entry bearing M.E No. 5233
dated 18.09.1991, M.E No. 5234 dated 18.09.1991 at Village
Bhayander, Dist. Thane; the mutation entry bearing M.E No. 287
dated 16/08/1991 at village Navghar, Dist. Thane and M.E No. 277
dated 04/09/1991 at village Goddev, Dist. Thane, the said property
had never come within share of the Yogendra Ranchodbhai Patel or
any of the legal heirs of late Ranchodbhai Patel as per their family
partition. It is important to note that the said revenue entries were
made upon the application given by Surendra Ranchodbhai Patel So
 it is well within his knowledge that neither Surendra Ranchodbhai
Patel nor any one from his family has any claim in the said plot of
land i.e. Old Survey No. 569, New Survey Hiss No. 2 admeasuring
1260 square meters Situated lying as being at Village Bhayander,
Taluka & District Thane Therefore, the survey number of the said
property is not mentioned in said revenue record and mutation entry.
(Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit D is mutation Entries
nos. 286 & 287 of Navghar and M.E No. 277 dated 04/09/1991 at
village Goddev, Dist. Thane)

(xx) I say that in respect of suit property, the previous land owner namely
Rajesh Anant Patil (the Applicant No. 31 herein) filed Criminal Case
bearing R.C.C No. 1967 of 2017 against the Respondent herein and
remaining Plaintiff of the said suit. In said matter, the Hon’ble Court
directed Bhayander Police Station to submit report u/s. 202 of
Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the concerned Police Officer of Bhayander Police
Station while investigating the said matter recorded the statement of
Original Complainant Mr. Rajsh Anant Patil. As per statement of
Mr. Rajesh S/o Anant Patil recorded by Bhayander Police station
19/07/2018 “After selling of the said land property to his father, Shri.
Ranchodbhai Patel was expired in year 1989. Thereafter, the name of
legal heirs of late Ranchodbhai Patel were mutated in respect of his
land properties within Village – Bhayander, However, the land
property bearing old survey no. 569, New survey no. 269, Hissa No.
2 is not mentioned anywhere in the mutation entry bearing no. 5233
dated 29/08/1991 (Ferfar patra). Therefore, it becomes clear that the
legal heirs of late Ranchodbhai Patel were aware that the said
property has already been sold by their father to Mr. Anant Mahadev
Patil. So question of coming of the said property in share of Mr.
 Yogendra R. Patel by way of partition by the family/heir does not
arise at all. Therefore, the agreement by Mr. Yogendra Patel which is
relied upon by the Respondents Nos. 1, 2, Late Shailesh Seventilal
Shah and Shri. Ketan Kiritbhai Shah and the heirs of Ranchodbhai
Patel are forged and bogus. After considering report u/s. 202 filed by
Bhayander Police Station, the Hon’ble J.M.F.C court took
cognizance and issued Process against them u/s. 406, 420, 465, 467,
468 & 471 of I.P.C. In said matter The Hon’ble Court has issued
summons to other Respondents as well on dated 28.05.2019 &
11.11.2019 and they are well aware with the said criminal case
pending against them. Moreover, Late Shailesh Shah had appeared
and later released on bail the Court. (Hereto annexed and marked
as Exhibit “E” Colly” is a certify copy of proceeding of Criminal
Case bearing R.C.C No. 1967 of 2017 and Order of issuance of
process).
(xxi) I say that the Respondent no. 3 has sought declaration from the court
that he be declared as absolute owner of the suit property. However,
As per revenue record and mutation entry bearing No. 5233 dated
18.09.1991and 5234 dated 18.09.1991, the suit property had never
come within share of the Respondent no. 3 or any of the legal heirs
of late Ranchodbhai Patel as per their family partition. Therefore, the
reference of the suit property is not given in said revenue record and
mutation entry.
(xxii) I say that the statement made on oath by the Respondents i.e.
Plaintiff no. 1, 2 and 5 in said suit being false, which fact he knew to
be false on the date of swearing, therefore, would tantamount to
giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding defined under Section
191/192 IPC, which is punishable under Section 193 IPC, therefore,
would contend that an affidavit is an evidence within the meaning of
 Section 191/192 IPC. A private complaint for filing a false affidavit
in civil proceedings would be maintainable, therefore, the impugned
orders are lawful and valid.
The salient features of giving false evidence under Section 191 IPC are:-
(i) intentionally making a false statement, or
(ii) Declaration by a person who is under a legal obligation to speak
the truth.
The giving of false evidence amounts to practicing of fraud upon the
court. Thus to make a statement of false evidence within the meaning of
this section, it must be established that the person was legally bound by
an oath or an express provision of law (a) to state the truth, or (b) to
make a declaration upon any subject.
(xxiii) That Section 191 and 192 deal with perjury and filing of false
affidavit in pleadings would be covered under Section 191. Section
191 deals with evidence on oath and Section 192 with fabricating
false affidavits; the offence under Section 191 IPC is constituted by
swearing falsely when one is bound by oath to state the truth because
a declaration made under an oath. The definition of the offence of
giving false evidence thus applies to the affidavits. The offence may
also fall within Section 192 which, inter alia, lays down that a person
is said to fabricate false evidence if he makes a document containing
a false statement intending that such false statement may appear in
evidence in a judicial proceeding and so appearing in evidence may
cause any person who, in such proceedings is to form an opinion
upon the evidence to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any
point material to the result of such proceedings. Therefore, where
declarations in affidavits which were tendered in the Court to be
taken into consideration, the Respondents of the affidavit clearly
intended the statement to appear in evidence in a judicial
 proceedings and so appearing, to cause the Court to entertain an
erroneous Plaint, therefore, the offence would fall within Section
191, 192 which is punishable under Section 193 IPC, therefore, it
was held that the Respondents of the affidavits were guilty of
offence of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence for the
purpose of being used in judicial proceedings.
(xxiv) "In the instant case, the affidavit in support of plaint have been filed
by the Respondents in a proceeding pending before the civil court
and the offence falls under Section of the 193 of the IPC and the
proceeding ought to have been initiated on the complaint in writing
by that Court under Section 195 (1)(b)(i) of the (Cr.P.C.).
(xxv) That from the abovesaid facts, It proves that the Respondents have
intentionally made false submission on oath regarding having rights
in the suit property by virtue of Joint Venture agreement dated
16.07.2004 and deliberately concealed material facts from the court
about filing of Regular Criminal Case bearing No. 1678/2014 against
Late Shailesh Seventilal Shah by the Respondent no. 1 in respect of
the suit property in order to grab the said suit property from the
Applicant. Since the beginning, The Respondents had knowledge
that they have no right, title, share and interest in the said property.
But, in order to grab the said property, the Respondents has
deliberately and willfully not brought any documents on record.
(xxvi) That, any false or misleading or a wrong statement deliberately and
wilfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favorable
order would undoubtedly tantamount to interfere with the due course
of judicial proceedings.
(xxvii) That the offence against administration of justice and criminal
contempt of court are made out. Therefore, Prima-Facie it proves
that the Respondents has committed offence of Perjury u/s. 191, 192
 and 193 of IPC. It is necessary to take cognizance in said matter and
passed an order of inquiry against the said Respondents for
committing abovesaid offences.
(xxviii) It is necessary to expedient in the interest of justice that an
inquiry be made into the offences alleged to have been committed by
the Respondents abovenamed in relation to the proceedings before
the court.
5. I say that The crux of the mandate of Section 340 is formation of an
opinion by the court that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an
inquiry should be made into an offence which appears to have been
committed.
6. I say that in R.C.S No. 448/2016, the Respondent have submitted that
“On 16th July 2004, the Plaintiff nos. 5 namely Shailesh Shah and
Shri Naresh Nemichand Jain had entered into a Joint Venture
Agreement with the Plaintiff nos. 6 and 7 i.e. the Respondent Nos. 1 &
2 herein to develop several properties inter-alia the suit property by
constructing building thereon jointly in the name and style of Leena
Associates”. On contrary, the Respondents had knowledge about
not having any rights, title and claim in suit property Therefore, he
had filed Regular Criminal Case bearing No. 1678/2014 against
Late Shailesh Seventilal Shah for offence of breach of trust and
cheating. That as per para no. 16 of the said complaint, the complainant
have stated that “while executing an agreement dated 16/07/2004,
Mr. Shailesh Shah had represented them that the said property is
having clear marketable title and he owned the said property.
However, upon perusal of 7/12 extract of the said property, the
Respondent learnt that the said 7/12 extract contains the name of
different persons and not Mr. Shailesh Shah. Upon making of
further inquiry, the Respondent learnt that Mr.Shailesh Shah was
 never having any rights in the said property and Original owners
have already sold the said property to third party with help of
Shailesh Shah”. However, the Respondent did not disclose about the
said fact while filing present suit and in further to grab the said
property deliberately made false statement in plaint about having
right, title, share and interest in suit property and produced false,
frivolous, baseless documents on record of the court to establish his
rights in suit property in spite of having knowledge that such
documents have no value in eyes of law in order to get favourable
order thereby deliberately misguided and misled the hon’ble court.
7. Despite the Respondent is well aware with the fact that he had not
obtained any development rights vide Joint Venture Agreement
dated 16th July 2004 and same was void-ab-initio because Mr.
Shailesh Shah had no right to enter into any deal in respect of said
property with the Respondent as per own submission of the
Respondent no. 1 made in RCC No. 1678/2014 filed against Mr.
Shailesh Shah, despite of that, he deliberately concealed material
facts from the court and made false submission in the court about
having rights in the said property and sought relief from
declaration and injunction from the court against the Defendant
therein including the Applicant in respect of the suit property.
8. I say that the cause of action for filing the said application arose when
the Applicant had taken out certified copy of Regular Criminal Case No.
1678 of 2014 filed by Mr. Dilip Porwal against Mr. Shailesh Shah on
dated 30/03/2021. Therefore, the said application is filed well within
limitation period.
9. I say that the abovesaid Respondents have intentionally and deliberately
made false statement, submission while filing said Special Civil Suit
bearing No. 448/2016 in order to get favourable order. The said
 application is to be made before the court where allegedly the offence of
perjury is being committed. Therefore, the Applicant files present Misc.
Application in abvoesaid suit.
10.I crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to produce such other and further
documentary and oral evidence at proper stage of the Proceedings.
11.I crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to add, amend and alter this petition
if required in future.
12. I, therefore, prays that -
a) The present application be allowed;
b) The Hon’ble court may please to initiate inquiry into the allegations
made against the Respondents herein;
c) The Hon’ble court may cause to make a complaint in writing;
And caused to send it to the magistrate of the first class having
jurisdiction against the Respondents herein for taking cognizance for
committing offence of U/s. 191, 192 & 193 of Indian Penal Code
against the Respondents;
d) Any other order in the interest of justice be passed.
Place – Thane
Date - Applicant

Advocate for Applicant

 VERIFICATION
I, Mr. Umesh D. Thakker, One of the partner of M/s. Jai Gurudev
Realty, A registered partnership Firm, Age – 49 Years, Occupation –
Business, having R/at – B-202/3, Hare Krishna CHSL., P.M.Road, Vile Parle
(East), Mumbai – 57 do state on solemn affirm that whatever I have stated
hereinabove is true and correct as per best of my knowledge and belief
Solemnly affirm on __ day of August 2021 )
At Thane ) Applicant

Advocate for Applicant

 IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),
THANE AT THANE
Civil M.A No. 1103 of 2021
In
Regular Civil Suit No. 448/2016
M/s. Jai Gurudev Realty )
A Partnership Firm )… Applicant
(Org. Defendant No. 33)
V/s.
1. Shri Dlip Lalchand Porwal )… Respondent No. 1
(Org. Plaintiff no. 1)
2. Smt. Indira Dilip Porwal ) … Respondent No. 2
(Org. Plaintiff No. 2)
3. Shri Yogendra Ranchodbhai Patel ) … Respondent No. 3
(Org. Plaintiff No. 5)
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
Sr.No Particulars of Documents Exhibit No.
1. Copy of Index II & 7/12 extract A
2. Copy of Regular Criminal Case No. B
1678 of 2014 filed by Mr. Dilip
Porwal against Mr. Shailesh Shah
before J.M.F.C, Thane
 3. Copy of mutation entry no. 5233 & C
5234 recorded on dated 18/09/1991

4. Mutation Entries nos. 286 & 287 of D

Navghar and M.E No. 277 dated
04/09/1991 at village Goddev, Dist.
Thane
5. Copy of Criminal Case bearing E
R.C.C No. 1967 of 2017 and the heirs
of Ranchodbhai Patel and copy of
Summons dated 28.05.2019 &
11.11.2019, mutation entry of 5233
recorded on date 18/09/1991

6. Any other documents with

permission of court

Place – Thane
Date – __/___/2021 Applicant

Advocate for Applicant