The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has initiated criminal prosecution against multiple litigants for the fabrication of sale agreements and the fraudulent transfer of property during the pendency of legal proceedings. In a decisive judgment, a Division Bench comprising Justice D. Ramesh and Justice Alapati Giridhar dismissed five appeals, characterizing the litigation as a calculated attempt to defraud both the court and an opposing party. The court has directed the Registrar (Judicial) to file criminal complaints against the defendants and their witnesses for perjury, fabrication of evidence, and fraudulent transfer of property.

The dispute originated from a 2007 suit for specific performance filed by Pandipati Gopal Reddy, who claimed an agreement of sale for over 31 acres of land at a price of ₹2,10,000 per acre. While the trial court upheld his claim and rejected three competing suits filed by the Mekala family, the defendants appealed the decision. During the prolonged pendency of these appeals, the appellants provided an explicit undertaking to the High Court that they would not encumber or alienate the disputed property. Despite this solemn commitment, the second defendant and her children executed multiple sale deeds in December 2022, a move the court described as a flagrant violation of its authority.

Collusion and the Fabrication of Evidence

The High Court’s investigation into the veracity of the sale agreements revealed a sophisticated web of deceit. The court found that several agreements, cited by the Mekala family to stake their claims to the property, were anti-dated. Specifically, agreements purportedly executed in November 2006 were written on stamp papers issued by the Registrar’s Office in December 2006. Furthermore, the court observed that these documents were scribed and attested by the same individuals, who worked in collusion with the defendants to manufacture a paper trail that would defeat the original purchaser's rights.

Highlighting the gravity of these actions, the Division Bench noted: “It is expedient in the interest of justice that they are liable for prosecution for committing the offence for producing the agreements and giving false evidence in the suits and also asserting them in these appeals. Thus, they are liable for prosecution under Section 193 of IPC.”

The court’s scrutiny of the witnesses further solidified the finding of collusion. During cross-examination, the defendants were unable to explain how they had failed to report the alleged land transactions in their income tax returns or obtain necessary permissions despite being public servants. The court noted that these omissions, coupled with the identical writing style and shared attestation of the fabricated documents, left little doubt regarding the existence of a common design to mislead the judicial process.

Consequences of Breaching Lis Pendens

The High Court also addressed the fraudulent sale of the property executed by the second defendant in 2022, which occurred while the matter was still sub judice. Relying on the principles of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the court clarified that no party may transfer property subject to pending litigation without explicit judicial permission. The Bench emphasized that the majesty of the law demands that any advantage gained through contumacious conduct be nullified to prevent the abuse of the judicial process.

In justifying its directive for immediate cancellation of the 2022 sale deeds, the court remarked: “If such contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is to be accepted, then we are closing our eyes regarding the intention of the statute. It is obvious while interpreting the provisions of the statute, the court must give due weight to the intention of the statute in order to give effect to the provisions.”

The Bench invoked Section 206 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides for the punishment of fraudulent removal, concealment, or transfer of property to prevent its availability in legal proceedings. By alienating the property in direct breach of their own undertaking, the defendants triggered the court’s inherent powers to reverse the fraudulent transaction. The court has ordered the District Registrar of Nellore and the Sub-Registrar of Kovur to cancel the registrations of the December 2022 sale deeds, effectively restoring the status quo and ensuring that the illicit transfers do not serve as a shield for further obstruction.

Operative Directions and Future Prosecution

The final order of the High Court provides a clear roadmap for the criminal proceedings to follow. While the prosecution against the first defendant has abated due to his death during the pendency of the appeal, the other defendants—specifically the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth, alongside defense witnesses Challa Sreenivasulu and Giddaluri Narayana—face imminent criminal charges. The court has granted the plaintiff in O.S. No. 49 of 2007 the liberty to lodge separate reports under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code regarding the forgery of documents.

In addition to the criminal directions, the court has explicitly barred the Sub-Registrar from entertaining any further registration requests regarding the disputed property unless sanctioned by the court. This directive ensures that the property remains available for the satisfaction of the decree ultimately secured by the plaintiff. The Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court has been tasked with overseeing the filing of complaints before the jurisdictional Magistrate, signaling an end to the defendants’ attempts to frustrate the judicial mandate through fabricated pleas. The appeals in A.S. Nos. 527 and 623 of 2013 were dismissed with costs, while A.S. Nos. 530, 646, and 656 of 2013 were dismissed as abated, concluding a multi-year litigation cycle marked by judicial determination to curb property-related fraud.