Court dismisses rival suits based on forged agreements with ante-dated stamps, directs cancellation of fraudulent property registrations and prosecution under IPC Sections 193, 206, and 467
In a landmark judgment delivered on October 16, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Division Bench) decisively upheld the decree of specific performance in favor of Pandipati Gopal Reddy, rejecting rival claims based on fabricated agreements and ordering legal action against the perpetrators of forgery and fraudulent property transfers.
The case involved a dispute over a 31.28-acre property in Peramana village, Atmakur Mandal. The plaintiff, Pandipati Gopal Reddy, had entered into a valid agreement of sale dated January 20, 2007, with the 1st to 3rd defendants (a family including husband, wife, and daughter) agreeing to purchase the land at Rs. 2,10,000 per acre. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 2,00,000 and demonstrated continuous readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 63,68,525, supported by undisputed bank statements and timely issuance of paper publication and legal notices.
The defendants, however, contested the plaintiff's readiness and willingness and claimed to have sold the property earlier to the 4th to 6th defendants under three separate agreements dated November 25 and 29, 2006, and January 6, 2007. These agreements formed the basis of rival suits filed by those defendants for specific performance.
The High Court, after thorough scrutiny, found that the agreements relied upon by the 4th to 6th defendants were fabricated. Crucially, the court analyzed stamp issuance records and established that the stamp papers used for these agreements were issued after the dates mentioned on the documents, proving ante-dating and forgery. The same attestors and scribe were involved in all the rival agreements, indicating collusion among the defendants.
Rejecting the rival suits, the court held that the plaintiff's prior agreement was valid and enforceable despite the absence of boundary descriptions, as the survey numbers, total extent, and identity of the property were undisputed. The clause regarding measurement did not render the contract uncertain since the total extent and rate per acre were explicitly stated. The court emphasized the plaintiff's continuous readiness and willingness and dismissed the defendants' evasive denials as insufficient.
Highlighting the seriousness of the fabricated documents and false evidence, the court directed the plaintiff to initiate prosecution against the conspirators under Sections 193 (false evidence), 206 (fraudulent transfer of property), and 467 (forgery of valuable security) of the Indian Penal Code. It was noted that the 1st defendant's prosecution is abated due to his death during the appeal.
Furthermore, the court observed that the defendants breached their undertaking before the court by alienating the suit property during the pendency of appeals. Accordingly, it ordered the District Registrar and Sub-Registrar to cancel the registrations effected on December 12, 2022, concerning the suit property and prohibited any further registrations except under the authority of the judgment.
The judgment reinforces the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which bars transferring the subject property during litigation, and underscores judicial intolerance towards fraudulent practices that undermine the justice delivery system.
This case serves as a stern warning against fabrication of documents and fraudulent alienation of properties during the pendency of litigation, emphasizing the court's commitment to uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings and protect bona fide purchasers.
Bottom Line:
Specific performance - Prior agreement of sale proved and purchaser's readiness and willingness established - Subsequent rival agreements found fabricated and ante-dated - Defendants having alienated property during pendency of appeals in breach of undertaking, Court directed prosecution and cancellation of subsequent registrations.
Statutory provision(s):
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 16(c), Indian Penal Code Sections 193, 206, 467, Transfer of Property Act Section 52
Thota Gopal v. Pandipati Gopal Reddy, (AP)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2999788
