Judgment :- 1. Ramaswami, J.: 1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Judge of this Court directing the Registrar to prefer a Complaint against the appellant before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for offences punishable under Ss.193 and 199, I.P.C. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the. appeal are as follows: In C.S.No.28 of 1975, a money decree was made against one B.D. Goenka and B.D. Mimani personally and the legal representatives of one R.S. Jhaver to the extent of the estate inherited by them from the late R.S. Jhaver. The decree holder was the General Electric Company of India. The said decree holder filed E.P.No.78 of 1980 for executing the decree against B.D. Goenka, B.D. Mimani and the legal representatives of R.S. Jhaver. Pending the execution proceedings, the decree holder assigned the decree in favour of the respondent. 3. The judgment - debtors were partners of a firm called Messrs. Traders and Traders and they had obtained a decree against the respondent herein, in C.S.No.37 of 1975. The original decree-holder in execution of the decree in C.S.No.28 of 1975 in E.P.No.78 of 1980 attached the decree in C.S.No.37 of 1975. Pending these proceedings, B.D. Goenka also died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The respondent assignee decree holder filed Appln. No. 4218 of 1983 in E.P.No.78 of 1980 praying for an order to bring himself on record as assignee decree holder in the execution proceedings in order to enable him to proceed against the judgment-debtors for the recovery of the money and had also prayed for an adjustment of the decree amount claimed by the judgment-debtors against him in pursuance of the decree in C.S .No.37 of 1975 and for permission to recover the balance of the amount in C.S.No.28 of 1975, against the judgment-debtors and the legal representatives of B.D. Goenka and R.S. Jhaver to the extent of the estate in the hands of the legal representatives. In this petition to bring on record the assignee decree holder in the execution proceedings, so as to enable him to execute the decree and to get an adjustment of the entire amount of the decree in C.S.No.37 of 1975 in part satisfaction of the decree in C.S.No.28 of 1975, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the legal representatives of R.S. Jhaver, by the appellant herein who was one of his sons. In this affidavit he had stated: “I humbly submit that, so far as C.S.No.28 of 1975 is concerned, it is only in respect of assets in our hands, which we have got from my late father Mr. R.S. Jhaver. I have not obtained nay-properties from him. Therefore, there is no question of any execution against us.” 4. By an order dated 13.8.1984, the learned Master ordered this application as prayed for. But, it may be noticed that the learned Master in the course of his order noticed the defence taken by the appellant that there are no assets of late Mr. Jhaver in the hands of legal representatives which are liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree. The learned Master further has observed that through the appellant herein has filed a counter affidavit for himself and on behalf of the other respondent, on most of the occasions, the appellant and the learned counsel for the appellant were absent and even after it was part-heard, no representation was made on subsequent occasions in behalf of the appellant herein and the other legal representatives. 5. After impleading himself in the execution proceedings the respondent-assignee decree holder filed Appln. No.5390 of 1985 in E.P.No.78 of 1980 under S.340, Crl. P.C., requesting the Court for a direction tot he Registrar to file a Complaint to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras for prosecuting respondents 6 to 11 in that application who are the legal representatives of deceased R.S. Jhaver on the ground that they have committed offences punishable under Ss.193, 196, 199 and 200, I.P.C. by filing an affidavit in Appln. No. 4218 of 1983 in E.P.No.78 of 1980 containing false allegations that they had not obtained any property from late R.S. Jhaver, and that, therefore, the execution petition could not be proceeded against them. No. 4218 of 1983 in E.P.No.78 of 1980 containing false allegations that they had not obtained any property from late R.S. Jhaver, and that, therefore, the execution petition could not be proceeded against them. Their further contention was that the allegation that they had not obtained any property was a deliberate falsehood knowing fully well that it is false. The learned Judge accepted this contention of the respondents and directed the Registrar to prefer a Complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. However, the learned Judge stated that the, appellant who swore to the counter affidavit in Appln. No. 4218 of 1983 alone was guilty of making false representation and the other legal representatives are not liable to be proceeded against for offences states above on the ground that though the affidavit is filed on their behalf also, it cannot be stated that they have subscribed to that false allegation knowingly. It is against this order the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 6. Three sets of facts were relied on by the respondents before the learned Judge in support of their allegation that the statement in the counter affidavit filed by the appellant in Appln. No.4218 of 1983 denying that they had obtained any property from R.S. Jhaver was false. The first set of facts related to some landed property measuring about 15 grounds Comprised in S.No. 638/lB of Ambattur village, in Saidapet taluk, Chingleput District. The fact that this is a very valuable property admits of no doubts. However, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant both before the learned Judge and before us that this property was the subject matter of a partition as evidenced by a Kuri chit dated 3.1.1964, under which the sons of R.S. Jhaver were allotted these properties and at the time of the death of R.S. Jhaver, in August, 1973, this had not formed part of his estate, the original of the alleged Kuri chit has not been produced but a copy of which was attested and marked as Ex. R1 in these proceedings. We have perused that document. We have grave doubts as to whether this document could at all be relied on as Kuri chit. In form, it does not purport to evidence on earlier partition and allotment of individual properties to individual persons and therefore the admissibility for any purpose is also doubtful. R1 in these proceedings. We have perused that document. We have grave doubts as to whether this document could at all be relied on as Kuri chit. In form, it does not purport to evidence on earlier partition and allotment of individual properties to individual persons and therefore the admissibility for any purpose is also doubtful. There is a statement that the immovable property of the joint family were allotted to the sons. The document is more in the form of a partition deed. However, it may be stated that so far as this document is concerned, the case of the respondent was that this document requires registration and it is not admissible in evidence for want of registration and that this also could not be relied on the ground that with no certainty it could be ascertained that any individual properties were given or the whole of the assets of the family were divided. It was also contended that the alleged Kuri chit is a sham and nominal document not acted upon or intended to be acted upon. Be that as it may, what is relevant is that this property of 15 grounds which we referred to earlier seems to have been plotted out into number of plots and various documents were executed and they were marked as Ex. A2 to A5. These sale deeds were executed either by the appellant or by the appellant for himself and on behalf of his brothers. In none of these, the source of tittle of the vendors was referred to as a Kuri chit or a partition. In fact, in one of the documents relating to Tondiarpet properties Ex. A7, the sources of title is claimed to be by inheritance and not under a partition or under the alleged Kuri chit and this document is executed by not only the sons but also the wife and daughter of late R.S. Jhaver. In the circumstances, therefore, a bald allegation even in respect of this property that they had not obtained any property from him could not be a correct statement. In the circumstances, therefore, a bald allegation even in respect of this property that they had not obtained any property from him could not be a correct statement. In fact, at one stage we asked the learned counsel for the appellant whether he is sticking to the statement that he had not obtained any property from his father as stated in the counter affidavit or whether he wants to proceed on the basis that the statement is a mistake and he had inherited property. He did not answer till the end though he had three days time to consult his client, but he was only referring to the Kuri chit and other documents. Even if the said 15 grounds of land was the subject matter of the Kuri chit, in the affidavit, the appellant should have referred to it and mentioned it as having got under a Kuri chit and therefore, not a property inherited by him subsequent to the death of R.S. Jhaver. The statement in the counter affidavit that he had not received any property is, therefore, an incorrect statement. 7. The other set of properties which were relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent were 22,250 shares in Messrs. Oriental Balm and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and 100 shares in Messrs. United Pharma (India) Pvt. Ltd. These shares were originally in the name of R.S. Jhaver. After his death, the shares were transferred in the name of the appellant. As seen from the affidavit filed by the Accountant of Messrs. Oriental Balm and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the transfer of 22,250 shares was effected after the death of R. S. Jhaver in the name of the appellant. The respondent has produced a latter dated 25-9-1974, written by the appellant to Messrs. United Pharma (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mount Rd., Madras -2, and a photostat copy of an indemnity bond executed by the legal representatives of R.S. Jhaver in favour of United Pharma (India) Pvt. Ltd. As seen from the letter written by the appellant, the shares standing in the name of R.S. Jhaver were transferred in the name of the appellant as the Kartha of Messrs. Lala Gopikrishna Gokuldas and the indemnity deed was signed by the successors of R.S. Jhaver, indemnifying the Company in respect of the transfer of the shares in favour of the appellant These two documents show that R.S. Jhaver originally owned the shares and they were transferred in the name of the appellant as the Kartha of the joint family of Lala Gopikrishna Gokuldas. The indemnity deed was executed not only by the four sons of the late R.S. Jhaver but also by his wife and two daughters. These facts clearly establish that the late R.S. Jhaver owned at the time of his death, 22,250 shares in Messrs. Oriental Balm and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and 100 shares in Messrs. United Pharma (India) Pvt. Ltd. and on his death they were not only suppressed but also a deliberate wilful false statement was made that he had not obtained any property of the late R.S. Jhaver. 8. The next set of properties related to certain immovable properties situate in Tondiarpet obtained by way of release by R.S. Jhaver admittedly subsequent to the Kuri chit dated 3.1.1964. There could, therefore, be no doubt that the property belonged to R.S. Jhaver individually and this continued till his death. Both the release deed as also an extract form the register of taxes on buildings in the name of R.S Jhaver are produced and marked as Exs.A8 and A9 in this case. The appellant herein has not only suppressed this fact but also, as rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, has come forward with a false case that he had not inherited any property from his father. The learned Judge has also given a finding both in regard to the shares as also the Tondiarpet property that the statement in the counter - affidavit was, in the circumstances, a blatant falsehood; and the learned Judge was prima facie satisfied that offences under Ss.193 and 199, I.P.C. have been committed by the appellant. In the foregoing circumstances, we are in entire agreement with these findings of the learned Judge. 9. In the foregoing circumstances, we are in entire agreement with these findings of the learned Judge. 9. It was next contended by the learned counsel that in order to bring the offences under Ss.193 and 199, I.P.C., the offences should have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the court within the meaning of S.195(1) (b) (i) , and S.340(1) Cr.P.C, and in this case; since neither the master was called upon to consider whether this allegation was, true or not nor had the Master considered it, the appellant could not be said to have committed any -offence of perjury. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the Master had not used this statement against the respondent and, therefore, the respondent could not be said to have been prejudiced by that statement also. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. We have already pointed out that the learned Master has specifically referred to the allegation in the counter affidavit denying the receipt of any assets of late R.S. Jhaver by his legal representatives. Secondly, the petition to implead the assignee decree holder was filed in the execution proceeding itself for the purpose of execution of the decree and, in fact, they have prayed for an adjustment of the decree amount in C.S.No.37 of 1975 towards the decree in C.S.No.28 of 1975 in that very application. The prayer also was as an assignee decree holder to permit them to continue the execution against the judgment debtors. Therefore, when the appellant mentioned that they had not got any properties of R.S. Jhaver and that therefore, there was no question of any execution against them, certainly that is really a matter which was relevant for the purpose of execution against the legal representatives of R.S Jhaver. If that statement had been accepted by the learned Master, even after he had impleaded the assignee decree holder in the execution proceedings, he could have held that the execution could not be proceeded against the legal representatives on the ground that they had not obtained any property from R.S. Jhaver. Therefore, that was a material statement made for the purpose of prosecuting an execution of the decree against the legal representatives and any mis-statement or wrong statement or false statement is certainly a relevant factor and that statement could not be ignored. Therefore, that was a material statement made for the purpose of prosecuting an execution of the decree against the legal representatives and any mis-statement or wrong statement or false statement is certainly a relevant factor and that statement could not be ignored. That was the view of the learned Judge also with which we agree. 10. Though the learned counsel for the appellant seems to have relied on certain decisions in support of his contention that the appellant had not committed in or in relation to any proceedings in court any of the offenees alleged to have been committed, the learned counsel did not refer to those cases before us; but suffice it to say that the learned Judge was right in making a distinction in the judgment and really they are not relevant for the purpose of this case. 11. Under S.193, I.P.C. whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine and who sever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. 12. In this case, the affidavit was given in a pending proceeding and not in a proceeding which had been concluded, as it was intended to be used in the execution proceedings and, therefore, on the plain reading of the section, the statement will come within the provision. Similar provisions are contained in S.199, I.P.C., as also in S.195(1) (b) (i), Crl. P.C. 13. It was then contended that, if at all perjury or false evidence was before the Master and, therefore, the application should have been field before him and not before the learned single Judge. We are unable to agree with this contention. For one thing, the Master’s court is also a court within the meaning of the Rules of the High Court on the Original Side. We are unable to agree with this contention. For one thing, the Master’s court is also a court within the meaning of the Rules of the High Court on the Original Side. Secondly, under the Original Side Rules, O.14, R.8, the application for sanction to prosecute will have to be filed by a Judge’s summons and not by a Master’s summons and in these circumstances, the application filed before the learned Judge was also in order. 14. It was then vaguely contended by the learned counsel that no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the respondent and that it could not be said, therefore, that it is expedient in the interests of justice that a Complaint should be preferred. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. It is not merely a question of prejudice to me respondent but it is a case of a litigant, as stated by the learned Judge, trying to take the court for a ride making false averments in the affidavit We are also unable to say mat it does not prejudice the respondent It puts him every time to make an investigation to find out whether any assets had been left by R.S. Jhaver and they have been inherited by me appellant and the other legal representatives when the appellant knows what they have inherited and they have suppressed this matter. 15. For the foregoing circumstances, we agree with the findings of the learned Judge that offences under Ss.193 and 199, I.P.C. appear to have ben committed by the appellant in or in relation to proceedings before this Court and it is expedient in the interest of justice that a Complaint should be preferred against the appellant. 16. In me result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.