APHC010709872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3603] MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 57/2026 Between: 1. V. ARFATH,, W/O. LATE V. BABA FAKRUDDIN, R/O. D.NO. 20/1049, FLAT NO. 501, LAKSHMI SREENIVASA APARTMENT, RADHA KRISHNA NAGAR, CO-OPERATIVE COLONY, KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516001. ACTUALLY RESIDENT OF C-412, ARK SERENE COUNTY, CHANNASANDRA MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE, 560067. ...APPELLANT AND 1. N KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. N.C. VENKAT REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. OCCUPATION BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 20/941, CO- OPERATIVE COLONY, KADAPA CITY, YSR DISTRICT-516001. 2. N BHARATHI, W/O. N. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 20/941, CO-OPERATIVE COLONY, KADAPA CITY, YSR DISTRICT-516001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. THOMMANDURU V SARADHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI 2 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Alapati Giridhar) 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Decree and Order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa, dated 07.10.2025 in I.A.No.326 of 2025 in O.S.No.11 of 2025, assailing the grant of temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from alienating the Petition schedule property/2227.43 square yards of Plot No.193-B part of Industrial Plot till disposal of the Suit. 2. For brevity, the parties will be referred to as the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, as arrayed in the Trial Court. I. CONTENTIONS: 3. The brief contentions of the learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant are that the Trial Court did not appreciate the facts of the case and failed to examine prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. That the Defendant is a Widow as her husband died on 28.05.2022, the Death Certificate is also filed and exhibited as Ex.R.1. But in the Agreement of Sale/Ex.P.1, dated 09.05.2022, husband of the Defendant is mentioned as „Late V. Baba Fakruddin‟, which is much prior to his death, which shows that the Agreement of Sale is fabricated but the Trial Court did not discuss all these material aspects including the Death Certificate and mentioning her husband‟s name as „Late V. Baba Fakruddin‟ in the Agreement despite specific pleading that it is forged and fabricated one. That the Defendant was in Bangalore. The Plaintiffs created a false address in Kadapa and sent a legal notice, and also provided the false information and obtained the temporary injunction, and sought to set aside the Injunction Order, and remand the matter for adjudication afresh duly appreciating the material. 4. Whereas the learned counsel for Petitioners/Plaintiffs submits that the Trial Court rightly considered the prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and granted temporary injunction. The 3 learned counsel admitted that in the Agreement of Sale, the Defendant‟s husband‟s name is mentioned as „Late V. Baba Fakruddin‟ but he contends that the Death Certificate/Ex.R.1 is suspicious as the date of registration, date of update and other portions are not tallying. On a query by the Court as to whether the Defendant‟s husband was alive or not on the date of the alleged Agreement of Sale, the learned counsel submitted that he has to take instructions. The learned counsel alternatively submitted that in the event of remanding the matter to the Trial Court to consider the Death Certificate/Ex.R.1 and the allied contentions, he sought to direct the Appellant/Defendant to maintain status-quo till disposal of the Application. II. BRIEF PLEADINGS: 5. The brief pleading of the Plaintiffs is that the Defendant approached them and offered to sell the schedule property, finally the consideration was settled at Rs.75,00,000/-. On 09.05.2022, the Defendant executed an un- registered Agreement of Sale in favour of the Plaintiffs and received an advance of Rs.40,00,000/- and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration on or before 13.12.2024 agreeing to clear mortgages from APSFC, measure the schedule property and fix the boundaries, if she fails to fulfill the terms and conditions, she has to pay Rs.80,00,000/- to the Plaintiffs i.e., the double of the paid amount. That the Plaintiffs have been requesting the Defendant to measure the schedule property, but she has been postponing the same and has not cleared the loan from APSFC. They approached her several times, offered her to receive balance sale consideration and to measure the schedule property. On 04.12.2024, the Plaintiffs issued a legal notice calling to obey the conditions of the Agreement of Sale, but the said notice was returned willfully to avoid registration. That they are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract as per the Agreement of Sale. The Defendant is trying to sell away the property, if she succeeds, there will be multiple proceedings and litigation against the third parties and sought an injunction against the Defendant/Respondent not to alienate the schedule property till the disposal of the Petition. 4 6. The brief pleadings of the Defendant is that she denied the plaint averments that she approached the Plaintiffs to sell the schedule property and fixed rate at Rs.75,00,000/- and they paid her Rs.40,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration on 09.05.2022 and that she executed an Agreement of Sale, agreed to measure the property and clear the loan of APSFC and pay taxes to the APIIC on or before 13.12.2024. That the lies are invented by the Plaintiffs to knock away the schedule property, that requesting her to measure the schedule property and fix the boundaries are false. The 1st Plaintiff knows her husband, he was also one of the attestors in the Sale Deed. The 1st Plaintiff knows about the demise of her husband and she has been residing in Bangalore but the Plaintiffs have colluded with the scribe and attestors and forged her signature and fabricated the Agreement of Sale. She never executed any document including the Agreement of Sale, that she is not residing either in the address mentioned in the legal notice nor in the cause title mentioned in the Suit and I.A. That due to ill-health of her husband, she used to reside at Bangalore from the year 2021 itself, where her daughter and son-in-law have been residing. That the summon issued by the Court in the Suit and I.A were communicated to her through phone, duly furnished by their counsel, they all know that she is not residing at Kadapa but falsely submitted to the Court that she did not respond to the notice. That the Schedule property is in Kadapa, whereas non-judicial stamp papers of the Agreement of Sale are purchased on 09.02.2021 from Pullampet Sub Registrar Office, appears to have been purchased for some other purpose, which is about 70 kms from Kadapa, but after lapse of nine months from the date of purchase of stamp papers, the Agreement of Sale dated 09.05.2022 is created. That she immediately on 03.05.2025 lodged a Report through Registered Post before the Station house Officer, RIMS Police, Kadapa for criminal action. The signatures on the Agreement of Sale do not belong to her, her signatures are forged in collusion with the scribe and attestors. That she discharged the loan availed from APSFC in the year 2022 itself and the schedule property is clear from all encumbrances. The Plaintiffs have approached the Court with unclean 5 hands by suppressing the material facts and obtained ex parte injunction and prays to dismiss the Petition with exemplary costs. III.ANALYSIS: 7. The Court perused the Order of the Trial Court. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant, the Trial Court at Para No.6, extracted the pleadings, Agreement of Sale/Ex.A.1, Death Certificate/Ex.R.1, disputing her signature on the Agreement of Sale but did record what is the material that weighed the Court to arrive at satisfaction on prima facie case and so also on the balance of convenience, further held that the Court cannot find whether the Agreement of Sale contains her signatures are forged by the Plaintiffs. Also held that the Appellant/Defendant did not file any document to show that a crime was registered on the Report, if any, given by her, and recorded a finding which is extracted hereunder: “06.………………………………………………......................... ……………………………………………………………………… Ex.P.5 is the Encumbrance Certificate. Respondent filed death certificate of her husband which shows the date of death of husband of respondent as 28.05.2022 which is issued by Kadapa Municipal Corporation. The respondent is disputing her signature on Ex.P.1 sale agreement. Unless and until, both the parties put their evidence at this Interlocutory Application stage, this Court cannot find whether Ex.P1 sale agreement contains the signature of respondent or forged by the petitioners. Even the respondent did not file any document to show that even the crime was registered on the report if any given by the respondent against petitioners. Ex.P2 office copy of legal notice reveals that within stipulated period, the petitioner showed their ready and willingness to perform their part of contract and call the respondent to perform her part of contract. Under the above circumstances, petitioners prima-facie established their case, and balance of convenience in favour of petitioners. Affidavit averments coupled with third party affidavit averments reveals that the respondent is trying to alienate the petition schedule property. If respondent alienates the petition schedule property during the pendency of the suit and if the petitioners succeeds the suit, it may lead to multiplicity of proceedings which is nothing but irreparable loss to the petitioners. 07. In the result, petition is allowed without costs, by confirming the order dated.18.02.2025 by granting temporary injunction in favour of petitioners restraining the respondent from alienating the petition’s schedule property which is 6 subsequently extended from time to time is made absolute till the disposal of the suit.” 8. These observations of the Trial Court do not reveal the satisfaction of the Court to record that the Plaintiffs have prima-facie case and also do not reveal what weighed the Court to record prima-facie case or balance of convenience as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant. Further, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Trial Court did not discuss on Ex.R1/Death Certificate of Defendant‟s husband dated 28.05.2022 and also on the Agreement of Sale, which is dated 09.05.2022 and much prior to the death Certificate, wherein it is mentioned as „Late V. Baba Fakruddin‟ at her husband‟s column, as per the Defendant‟s specific pleading that the 1st Plaintiff knows her husband, these are very crucial. Thus, the Trial Court without recording adequate reasons to arrive at satisfaction on prima facie case and balance convenience, this Court has no occasion to re-appreciate them to decide this Appeal in these circumstances, thus requires remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the Trial Court. In the meantime, the Defendant shall maintain status quo till disposal of the I.A.326 of 2025 as sought by the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, in view of law under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act and circumstances of the case. 9. The allegation of the Defendant is that her signatures were forged and fabricated Agreement of Sale dated 09.05.2022/Ex.P.1 even showing her husband as deceased, in fact her husband died on 28.05.2022, much later to the Agreement, that she lodged a Report with the Police on 03.05.2025. Whereas the allegation of the Plaintiffs is that the Death Certificate/Ex.R.1 is suspicious, the date of registration, date of update and other portions are not tallying. 10. The Court is referring to some the following legal principles as the learned Counsels levelled serious allegations including forgery, fabrication of 7 the Agreement/Ex.P1, lodging of a Report, also raised suspicion on the Death Certificate/Ex.R1, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ramrameshwari Devi & others Vs Nirmala Devi & others 1 ,dealing with suits for Partition and Mandatory Injunction & mesne profits, held that the existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the Trial Courts while dealing with the civil trials, also held how unscrupulous litigants are harassing the innocent parties, extracted hereunder: “3. This is a classic example which abundantly depicts the picture of how the civil litigation moves in our courts and how unscrupulous litigants (the appellants in this case) can till eternity harass the respondents and their children by abusing the judicial system.” 52. The main……..xxxx A.xxx B.xxx C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.” 13. The Hon’ble Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Iqbal Singh Marwah & another Vs Meenakshi Marwah and another2, held that “if any agreement, sale deed, Will, Valuable Security etc is out of forgery or forged document, the bar created by Section 195(l)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C would not come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the 1(2011) 8 SCC 249 2(2005) 4 SCC 370 8 Court to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the Respondents”. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in State of Punjab Vs Raj Singh and Another 3, while examine powers of Court and Police, under Section 154 and 195 CrPC, held that “thestatutory power of police to investigate under the Code is not controlled or circumscribed by section 195 Cr.P.C and Section 195 operates at a stage when a Court intends to take cognizance of offence under section 190 (1) Cr.P.C, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accordingly quashed the Order of High Court for quashing F.I.R registered under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468, I.P.C” 15. Further, when a Party or witness, who filed a forged or fabricated document and makes a false statement or declaration or gives false evidence or fabricates false evidence, they are liable under Section 193 of IPC r/w 191 or 192 of IPC as per law depending on the facts of the case. Thus, the Parties are at liberty to agitate all these in the Trial Court. IV. CONCLUSION: 16. The Court, considering the submissions of the learned counsels, material on record and Order of the Trial Court dated 07.10.2025 in I.A.No.326 of 2025 in O.S.No.11 of 2025, inclined to hold that the Order is without adequate reasons to arrive at satisfaction on prima facie case and balance convenience, which requires remanding the matter for fresh consideration in the circumstances of the case, thus, the order is accordingly set aside and remanded the matter, directing the Trial Court to dispose the matter afresh taking into account of the pleadings and submissions of the parties, preferably within 4 months from the date of receipt of this Order. The Appellant/Defendant is directed to maintain status quo till disposal of the I.A.326 of 2025. 3(1998) 2 SCC 391 9 17. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of, there shall be no order as to Costs in view of remanding the matter and the circumstances of the case. The Court is making it clear that the Court did not express anything on the merits of the case. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH, J ____________________________ JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR, J Dt: . .2026 JKS 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 57 OF 2026 . .2026 JKS