The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Pilli Nagaraj Counsel for the Respona"nttlBoti"" Venkat Reddy The Court made the following: OROER n D,.G^A,l THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CryIL REVISIO NPETITION No.307 of 2025 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - respondent - No.1 - plaintiff, aggrieved by the order dated 19' l l '2024 in CMA No'24 of 2024 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, setting aside the order dated 10.07.2024 in l.A No'165 of 2024 in O'S No.208 of 2024 by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy'

2. Heard Sri Pitli Nagaraj, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri Police Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents'

3.Leamedcounselforthepetitionersubmittedthatthepetitioner filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10.12.2022 along with I.A. No.l65 of 2024 under Order 39 Rute I & 2 CPCforinjunctiontorestraintherespondentsinthesaidpetitionfrom alienating the petition schedule property. The trial Court allowed the I.A. vide order and decree dated 10.07.2024. challenging the said interim injunctionorderanddecreeinl.ANo'165of2024,dated10'07'2024'the respondents - defendants in the said I'A', preferred CMA No'24 of 2024 2 ltrGRR.! and the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy allowed the CMA by decree and order dated 19.11-2024-

3. 1 . Leamed counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy erroneously considered the contention of the respondents herein that basing on the forged partner's resolution document, dated 20'04'2019, the respondent No. 4 executed the agreement of sale in favor of the petitioner herein and the petitioner herein filed the suit for specific performance, basing on the agreement of sale dated 10-12.2022. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy erroneously considered the FSL report filed by the respondents herein connected to the other criminal case pending between the respondents Nos.1 and 4 herein in Crime No. 295 of 2024 registered by the Police Nagole, Rachakonda and came to the . conclusion that the agreement of sale does not contain the signature of the respondent No.2 herein and the sarne was not binding on the respondents. The respondents in order to cause loss to the appellant, to escape from the terms of the contract of the agreement of sale, were bringing forward the managed FSL report. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy lailed to recognize the same and also failed to consider that o J D..GRR,l CN No.l07 of 2025 similar suits were frled by different victims in o.S. No. 322 of 2024, o.s. No.62of2024andO.S.No.64of2024,whichwerependingbeforeIV Additionat District & Sessions Judge at Sangareddy. The II Additionat District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy failed to consider the view of the trial Court that the respondents failed to move any application for sending the partner resolution, dated 20.04.20 t9 for expert opinion to prove the aspect of forgery. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy ought to have considered the voluntary undertaking given by the respondents in their application and ought to hu\," ,",t.i.t"d th. respondents not to change the nature of the petition schedule property/alienate the same. The lower appellate Court failed to consider thatanamountofRs.l0,00,000/-(RupeesTenLakhsOnly)wasreceived by the respondent No.l towards full and final sale consideration and in case, if the petition schedule property was alienated by the respondents to anythirdparty,thesamewouldleadtomultipticityoflitigationandmay cause irreparable loss to the appellant herein and the right of the appellant in the subject property would be defeated and as such' prayed to set aside the impugned order and decree dated l9'll'2024 in CMA No'24 of 2024 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge' Sangareddy' \ i t l] I I 4 D..GRR.!

4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. I to 3, on the other hand, contended that the leamed Junior Civil Judge without going through the counter trled by them mechanically allowed the injunction application on 10.07.2024. Aggrieved by the said order and decree passed in l.A. No 165 of 2024 in O.S. No. 20812024, they preferred CMA before the II Additional District Judge, Sanga Reddy. The First Appellate Court after going through the grounds of appeal, pleadings and documents, rightly came to the conclusion and allowed the CMA filed by them with costs on

19.11.2024. A specific plea was taken by them before the trial court and the first appellate court that the suit agreement of sale was not executed by them and the same was brought into existence with the collusion of respondent No. 4 herein after his retirement from the partnership firm of the respondent No. l. I'he petitioner and respondent No. 4 were hand in glove with each other and got filed the suit in respect of the property peftaining to the respondent No.1. The petitioner had taken a specific plea before the trial court stating that basing on the partner's resolution, dated

24.04.2019, the suit agreement of sale was executed by the respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner failed to file the receipt which was executed by the respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioner on Y o 5 D..CRRl CRP NoJ07of2025

09.12.2022. The recitals of the receipt would clinchingly show that once the ownership was transferred from vendor to vendee both mutually agreed in principle to enter into joint development agreement in the ratio of 28:7 2o/o respectively. The receipt, agreement of sale, partners resolution were created by the respondent No. 4 after retirement from the partnership flrm. As per the mutual agreement in terms of the partnership deed, respondent No.2 and respondent No. 4 jointly purchased various properties and entered into agreements in the name of respondent No. I ' The respondent No.4 expressed his disinterest to continue with respondent No.1 and intended to exit from the partnership firm in a phased manner by

07.08.2022 and sent a whatsapp message to the respondent No'2' On

24.12.2022,the accounts of the respondent No.1 firm were reconciled' The respondent No.4 had submitted his resignation in writing and voluntarily retired from the partnership firm on 24.12.2022. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 was added as one of the partners in the f,rrm and the firm was reconstituted on 24.12.2022. In the last week of February, 2023, when internal audit of the firm was conducted, it was noticed that the respondent No.4 made several personal transactions and also purchased immovable properties for his personal gain in the name ''r his wife, son and parents-in- I I I 6 DLCRR.I- CRP No.l07 of20:t l law, by misappropriating the funds of the Respondent No.1 to a rune of Rs' 24,49,5371-. When the said act of the Respondent No' 4 was confronted, he admitted his guilt and stated that he would indemniff the loss by repaying the amounts, but lailed to oblige the same. On the other hand, respondent No.4 filed a false and frivolous complaint with the Police, Pocharam IT Corridor, Rachakonda against respondent Nos.2 and 3 and their family members, which was registered as Crime No. 33 of 2023 for the offences lJls.342,387 & l20B read with section 149 of the IPC' The.Respondent No.4 filed a false and lrivolous suit in 0.S. No. 25412023 on the file of I Additional Senior Civit Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda seeking cancellation of reconstitution of the partnership deed, dated

24.12-2022 and to restore the partnership deed. He also filed two interim applications seeking an injunction, which were dismissed by the Court after elaborate discussion on 20.02.202i-4. After dismissal of injunction application in O.S. No. 254 of 2023, the respondent No.4 conspired with the petitioner herein and other persons and frled a batch of suits for specific performance pertaining to the respondent No. 1 firm properties. Due to the illegal acts of the respondent No. 4, respondent No.2 was constrained to lodge a private complaint which was referred to police and the same was Y^ r] 7 registered as Crime No. 103 of 2023 for the offences U/s. 384, 403, 406, 409, 503 and 120-b of IPC. The respondent No.4 with an intention to harass the respondent Nos.l to 3, got filing the cases through some third parties. As such, the respondent No.2 was constrained to lodge a complaint before the SHO P.S. Nagole, Rachakonda for forging his signatures on partner's resolution and receipt. The same was registered as Crime No. 295 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 406,420,465, 468,471, 467 of IPC. The disputed documents were sent to the Intemational Forensic Science (lFS) Department, Pune, Maharashtra and an expert opinion was fumished that the signatures on the disputed documents would not belong to the respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR No. 295 of 2024, the respondent No.4 filed Criminal Petition No. 6032 of 2024 and Crl.P No. 604712024 to quash the proceedings in the said FIR.

4.1. He further submitted that the petitioner was none other than the close friend of the respondent No. 4. Prior to the retirement of the respondent No.4 from the Respondent No.1 firm, the respondent No. 4 had taken some of the blank stamped papers which were in the name of the respondent No.2 and after retirement with an evil intention conspired with the petitioner herein and brought into existence, the alleged resolution, I I E CRP No-J07 of 202h D,-CRR, dated 20.04.2019, receipt dated 09-12-2022 by forging the signatures of the respondent No.2 and created a false agreement of sale dated

10.12.2022. He further submitted that the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additionat Judiciat Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar sent the disputed document i.e., partner resolution dated 20.06.2019 to the Telangana Forensic Science Laboratory, Govemment of Telangana, Red Hills, Hyderabad in Crime No. 29512024 of PS Nagole and obtained a report. The Telangana Forelsic Science Laboratory also fumished the report to the Court stating that the disputed document did not contain the signatures of the respondent No.2. He further submitted that respondent No.4 in collusion with the petitioner filed a written statement in O.S No. 208 of 2024 on30.07.2024 stating that he had no objection in passing the decree in favour of the petitioner. The CRP was also got filed by the respondent No.4 herein himself as the counsel who filed the vakalat on behalf of the respondent No.4 herein before the trial court was the same person who filed vakalat in the CRP by name Nikhil Kumar Dhanuka. The respondent No.4 was playing key role in initiating irrelevant and frivolous proceedings only with an intention to de-fame the respondenr Nos. I to 3 in the market and reiterated that the respondents 9 Dr.GRR,t CR? No.Jo7 of2025 gave an undertaking before the first Appellate Court not to alienate the plots covered under the suit schedule property and that the first Appellate Court recorded the same in its order \

5. Perused the order passed by the First Appellate Court in CMA No.24 of 2024 wherein in paragraph No.22 it was recorded that: "The leamed counsel for the appellants hled Memo stating that. the appellants in above CMA undertakes that they will not alienate and create any third-party charge in and over the plots covered under the suit schedule property in OS.No.208 of 2024 on the file II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangapeddy. I I

6. As the respondent Nos.l to 3 gave an undertaking before the lower appellate Court in CMA No.24 of 2024 not to alienate or create any third party charge in and over the suit schedule plots, which would protect the interest of the petitioner herein, this Court does not intend to go into the merits of the matter.

7. Leamed counsel for the revision petitioner also submitted that his interest would be satisfied with the said undertaking given by the respondent Nos. I to 3 herern.

8. As such, this CRP is disposed of recording the above undertaking given by the respondent Nos. I to 3 herein wherein they undertook that they t0 Irr.GRR,J CW No-J07 of2025 h would not alienate or create any third party charge in and over the plots covered under the suit schedule property. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY/' Sd/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY T REGISTRAR ASSI TION OFFICER To, '1 . The ll Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy 2. One CC to Sri Pilli Nagaral, Advocate [OPUCi 3. One CC to Sri Police Venkat Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies VI{/gh 6 I i HIGH COURT DATED: 0310212025 j srAr€ I q l J o 06 }t[ff ?$6 o ), .lt * i DES PA1 ORDER CRP.No.307 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF CRP -NJ€ G)tt"* H#