Respondents 2 to 4 filed a written statement wherein they relied upon three documents all dated 21st October, 1989.
The High Court takes into companysideration certain photographs and other material produced by the Respondents, and companycludes that the companyplaint was vexatious, frivolous and false.
The documents are a a general power of attorney b a sale cum possession receipts c and affidavits purported to have been sworn by the Appellant.
in survey No.
Hence this Appeal.
2003 Supp 3 SCR 973 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted.
The Appellant claims that these documents were never executed by him.
The Appellant claims that he also found some manipulations in the agreement to sell dated 18th February, 1988.
66 in Sarakki village.
The Appellant thus filed as suit against Respondent 2 to 4 for a permanent injunction restraining change of name in the records.
The Appellant thus filed, on 27th May, 2002, a companyplaint with the police station at Ulsoor companyplaining that these documents were forged and fabricated.
This agreement was for 25,188 sq.
On 7th September, 2000 Respondents 2 to 4 filed a suit for partition.
He appears to have entered into an agreement to sell dated 18th February, 1988 with his sister one Nirmala.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The appellant is the owner of survey No.
One fails to understand how without evidence the High Court companyld have relied on this material.
The Appellant claims that he learnt that Respondents 2 to 4 were trying to get this piece of land transferred to their names on the basis of some partition deed.
Heard parties.
This Appeal is against an Order dated 26th August, 2002 whereby an FIR has been quashed.
