Sri G.Shanmukha Rao

-1-

Crl. A. No.9/2025 XIIIAD&SJ/GWK

APVS0A0000422025

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

Present : Sri. G.Shanmukha Rao, XIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gajuwaka.

Thursday, this the 16th day of April, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9/202 5

From which Court the : Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, appeal is preferred Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

No. of the case in that Court : CC NO.113/2018

No. of the Appeal: Crl. Appeal No.9/2025

Name & Description of the Appellants/A1 and A2:

1. Nagireddy Venkata Ramana, s/o Pothayya, aged 36 years, r/o Kalapaka Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

2. Nagireddy Pothayya, s/o Somu Naidu, aged 64 years, r/o Kalapaka Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

Name & Description of the Respondent/Complainant : The State, represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam

Sentence and law under which: Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC it was imposed in the Lower Court A1 and A2 were found guilty for the charge under Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC and are convicted and sentenced to undero imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable u/sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC.

Whether confirmed, modified: Confirmed or reversed.

-2-

Crl. A. No.9/2025 XIII AD&SJ/GWK

Date of presentation: 06.01.2025

Date of filing: 06.01.2025

Notice issued by Court to : 04.03.2025 appear

Respondent ordered to appear: 04.03.2025

Hearing: 10.04.2026

Judgment: 16.04.2026

This Criminal Appeal coming on 10.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.V.Rama Rao and Sri A.V.Ratnarao, Advocates for the Appellants/A1 and A2 and of Sri Viswanadh, Additional Public Prosecutor

for Respondent/State and upon hearing their arguments and the matter

having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.1.A1 and A2 are appellants herein who were convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code, by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gajuwaka, in CC 113/2018, dated

03.01.2025, had filed this appeal.

2.Appellants are A1 and A2 in CC No.113/2018 and respondent is the State. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter Appellants and respondent are arrayed as accused and State.

3.The case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 provoked many innocent persons seeking jobs that they would provide permanent maintenance contract work jobs and asked to pay Rs.1,20,000/- per post. In the month of August, 2016, PW1 gave an amount of

Rs.1,20,000/- to A1 and A2 at Steel Plant Main Gate for his post. PW2 to

-3-

Crl. A. No.9/2025 XIIIAD&SJ/GWK

PW6 also gave Rs.1,20,000/- each to A1 and A2 at Steel Plant gate. On 22.01.2017 the accused provided gate pass to PW1 to PW6 and took them into the plant for work for one week. Later, A1 and A2 took back gate passes saying contract work was over. The accused 1 and 2 postponed providing jobs to them and gave promissory notes by promising that they would return the amount but did not return the amount.

(b) LW8 registered the report of PW1 in crime No.149/2017 u/sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC of Steel Plant P.S.. PW7 examined PW1 to PW6 and recorded their statements. PW8 verified the investigation done by

PW7 and filed PT Warrant to produce the accused before the court as

accused were arrested in crime No.145/2017 of Steel Plant P.S.. Accused

were produced on PT Warrant on 02.01.2018. Accused 1 and 2 were involved in crime No.145, 148, 149, 150 and 152/2017 u/sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC of Steel Plant P.S.. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

4.On appearance of A1 and A2 before trial court copies furnished and charges framed against A1 and A2 under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC and A1 and A2 claimed to be tried.

5.During course of trial before trial court, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for which they denied and did not adduce any evidence.

6.By the judgment impugned, learned trial Court convicted the

-4-

Crl. A. No.9/2025 XIII AD&SJ/GWK appellants / A1 and A2 for the offence punishable u/sec.420 r/w 34 of

IPC, aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants/A1 and A2 preferred the appeal basing on the following grounds :

i) The trial court without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, gave judgment contrary to law.

ii) First accused working as a contract labourer and second accused also previously worked as khalasi in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant.

The complainants should five civil suits for recovery of the amount.

iii) The complainant and others followed by I.Ramesh Babu in CC 112/2018 and he is close to them and he influenced the complainant to file false complaint. There is no such employment in Visakhapatnam

Steel Plant as there are excess contract employees and knows by everybody including complainants.

iv) Second accused retired as Steel Plant employee but he did not receive any amount. The burden on complainant to prove that consideration was passed. The defacto complainant hails from same locality and there is a close intimacy. Previously, some money transactions and first accused is liable to pay such amounts to the complainant, but trial court failed to observe these things.

v) First and second accused are workers and no capacity to get them recruited as employees or workers in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant but the trial court failed to observe this aspect. There is no documentary evidence to show that accused had given passes to PW1 to PW6.

-5-

Crl. A. No.9/2025 XIIIAD&SJ/GWK vi) Without cogent and corroborative evidence, the trial court found guilty of the accused.

vii) The trial court failed to observe that the first accused arranged passes to PW1 to PW6 after receipt of an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is totally false as the accused is not working in pass section.

viii) The trial court came to false conclusion as there is a promissory note stands in the name of the accused, as such, they committed the offence by creating five promissory notes.

ix) The complainant did not pay the amount for the purpose of employment. The trial court without appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, erroneously convicted the accused and prays to acquit the accused.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.The learned counsel for the appellants/A1 and A2 argued that accused are noway concerned in this case. PW1 to PW6 did not give any amounts to the accused and they created the promissory notes to harass the accused. Further argued that there is no existence of workers post in the Steel Plant, there is no corroboration in the evidence of PW1 to PW8, no money transaction taken place among PW1 to PW6 and accused. The investigating officer without any proper investigation as it was purely civil nature, filed this false case only to harass the accused. The trial court without appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, erroneously convicted the accused and prays to allow the appeal.

-6-

Crl. A. No.9/2025 XIII AD&SJ/GWK

10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State argued that

A1 son of A2 who was Steel Plant employee collected the amounts from

PW1 to PW6 to provide the employment. The accused induced PW1 to

PW6 to give amounts to them illegally. PW1 to PW6 categorically deposed that they gave amounts to accused for job purpose but the accused cheated PW1 to PW6 and did not repay the amounts to them.

The evidence of PW1 to PW8 clearly established the essential ingredients for the charges leveled against the appellants/accused. The learned trial court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, gave correct findings and convicted the accused and there are no merits in the appeal and prays to dismiss the appeal.

11.Basing on the contentions, the following point is framed for determination :

1. Whether PW1 to PW6 paid the amounts to the accused for job purpose and accused induced them to give the amounts to the accused with false promise?

2. Whether there are any reasons to interfere with the findings given in Calendar and Judgment passed in CC 113/2018, dated 03.01.2025 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gajuwaka?

12.POINT : The case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 provoked

PW1 and others to give amounts to provide jobs with false promises and induced the victims to give the amounts to the accused.

13.PW1/G.Trinadha Rao, PW2/Galla Srinivasarao, PW3/Bommani

Vijaya Murali, PW4/Galla Kiran Kumar, PW5/Galla Jai Prakash and PW6/

-7-

Crl. A. No.9/2025 XIIIAD&SJ/GWK

Medisetty Srinivasarao stated to be they gave amounts to the accused for providing employment in Steel Plant as workers.

14.PW1 being the defacto complainant categorically deposed that in the month of September, 2016, LW2 told him A1 providing jobs and maintenance works in Steel Plant and he paid amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to A1 on 16.10.2016. After two months A1 gave Steel Plant gate pass.

Later, he gave gate passes and they were taken back, but they did not give any passes for a period of two months. Later A1 and his father gave promissory notes but they did not give any amounts. He gave

Ex.P1 report. On perusal of Ex.P1 report, PW1 made allegations that himself and Murali, Trinadha Rao, G.Srinivas, G.Kiran, G.Jai Prakash,

G.Srinu, M.Srinivasa Rao and Murali, gave an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- each i.e., Rs.9,60,000/- to the accused for providing employment. PW1 also consistently deposed that he paid amounts to the accused.

15.PW2/Galla Srinivas, PW3/Bommana Vijay Murali, PW4/Galla Kiran

Kumar, PW5/Galla Jai Prakash, PW6/Medisetty Srinivasa Rao categorically deposed that they paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- each to the accused for the purpose of providing employment. Admittedly, the money transaction among A1 and A2 and PW1 to PW6 for illegal transaction. But PW1 to PW6 categorically deposed that they paid the amounts to the accused in the year 2016. To support their claim Ex.P2 promissory note executed by A1 and A2 in favour of Gidithuri Trinadh an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, Ex.P3 promissory note executed by A1 and A2 in favour of Medisetty Srinivasa Rao for an amount of Rs.3,60,000/-,

-8-

Crl. A. No.9/2025 XIII AD&SJ/GWK

Ex.P4 promissory note for an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- executed by A1 and A2 and Ex.P5 promissory note executed by A1 and A2 in favour of

Galla Jai Prakash for an amount of Rs.2,40,000/-. Thus, as per Exs.P2 to

P5 also the amounts were paid to the accused by PW2 to PW6.

16.The accused also did not deny Exs.P2 to P5 promissory notes.

Admittedly, PW2 to PW6 did not receive any receipts from the accused about the payments. But PW2 to PW6 categorically deposed that as they paid the amounts to the accused, as such, the accused executed

Exs.P2 to P5 promissory notes. During cross-examination of PW2 to

PW6 nothing was elicited in their favour to shaken the oral testimony of

PW2 to PW6 coupled with Exs.P2 to P5.

17.A2 working in Steel Plant. Thus, the deceitful intention to attract

PW1 to PW6 with a false promise to provide the job was established.

PW1 to PW6 believing the words of A1 and A2 gave amounts to the accused.

18. Section 420 of IPC reads as follows :

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The oral testimony of PW1 to PW6 coupled with Exs.P2 to P5 promissory notes clearly established that A1 and A2 dishonestly induced PW1 to

-9-

Crl. A. No.9/2025 XIIIAD&SJ/GWK

PW6 to give the amounts with false promise to provide the jobs in the

Steel Plant as workers eventhough accused 1 and 2 are noway concerned about the recruitment process which clearly established the essential ingredients for the offence u/sec.415 of Indian Penal Code cheating.

19.The evidence of PW7 going to show that LW8 received the report from PW1 on 14.12.2017 and registered the report in crime No.149/2017 u/sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC, Ex.P6 is the registered FIR. PW8/investigating officer evidence showing that he produced the accused before the court on executing PT Warrant and filed charge sheet. The evidence of PW1 to PW6 categorically deposed that they paid the amounts for getting jobs through accused. Thus, PW1 to PW6 gave the amounts illegally towards get employment through accused. A1 and A2 convinced PW1 to

PW6 to give the amounts. Thus, the essential ingredients for Sec.415 of

Indian Penal Code clearly established i.e., with regard to false promise.

20.On scrutinizing the entire evidence and documents, the prosecution could establish the essential ingredients for the offence punishable u/sec.420 of Indian Penal Code. The trial court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, rightly gave correct findings and sentenced the accused for the offence under Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC.

21.The contention of the appellants/A1 and A2 that the appellants/ accused did not commit any offence and to apply Sections 3 & 4 of

Probation of Offenders Act. The appellants also preferred four appeals

-10-

Crl. A. No.9/2025 XIII AD&SJ/GWK along with this appeal relating to cheating the victims and received huge amounts. Series of crimes were registered against the accused with regard to same offence along with this case. Hence, there are no merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Gajuwaka. Accordingly, the point is answered against the

appellants/A1 and A2.

22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence passed against appellants / A1/ Nagireddy

Venkata Ramana and A2 / Nagireddy Pothayya, by the learned

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Gajuwaka in CC No.113/2018, dated 03.01.2025.

The trial court is directed to take steps for execution of the conviction warrant against appellants/A1 and A2.

Office is directed to send the record in CC 113/2018 to trial court immediately.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao,

XIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gajuwaka.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No additional oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao,

XIIIAD&SJ/GWK Copy to : The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gajuwaka along with record in

CC No.113/2018

-1-

Crl. A. No.10/2025 XIIIAD&SJ/GWK

APVS0A0000432025

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

Present : Sri. G.Shanmukha Rao, XIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gajuwaka.

Thursday, this the 16th day of April, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10/2025

From which Court the : Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, appeal is preferred Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

No. of the case in that Court : CC NO.114/2018

No. of the Appeal: Crl. Appeal No.10/2025

Name & Description of the Appellants/A1 and A2:

1. Nagireddy Venkata Ramana, s/o Pothayya, aged 36 years, r/o Kalapaka Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

2. Nagireddy Pothayya, s/o Somu Naidu, aged 64 years, r/o Kalapaka Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

Name & Description of the Respondent/Complainant : The State, represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam

Sentence and law under which: Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC it was imposed in the Lower Court A1 and A2 were found guilty for the charge under Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC and are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable u/sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC.

Whether confirmed, modified: Confirmed or reversed.

-2-

Crl. A. No.10/2025 XIII AD&SJ/GWK

Date of presentation: 06.01.2025

Date of filing: 06.01.2025

Notice issued by Court to : 04.03.2025 appear

Respondent ordered to appear: 04.03.2025

Hearing: 10.04.2026

Judgment: 16.04.2026

This Criminal Appeal coming on 10.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.V.Rama Rao and Sri A.V.Ratnarao, Advocates for the Appellants/A1 and A2 and of Sri Viswanadh, Additional Public Prosecutor

for Respondent/State and upon hearing their arguments and the matter

having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.A1 and A2 are appellants herein who were convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code, by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gajuwaka, in CC 114/2018, dated

03.01.2025, had filed this appeal.

2.Appellants are A1 and A2 in CC No.114/2018 and respondent is the State. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter Appellants and respondent are arrayed as accused and State.

3.The case of the prosecution is that PW1 to PW9 gave amounts to the accused in the month of August, 2016 at Steel Plant main gate. A1 and A2 son and father collected the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- each from

PW1 to PW9 for arranging permanent contract labour posts in Steel

Plant. A1 and A2 gave safety passes and provided work for five days

-3-

Crl. A. No.10/2025 XIIIAD&SJ/GWK and paid Rs.5,000/- as wages. Later A1 and A2 collected passes from them with a view to renew the pass but the accused did not return the passes and cheated PW1 to PW9.

(b) LW11 registered the report of PW1 in crime No.148/2017 u/sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC of Steel Plant PS and he examined PW1 in the police station. PW11 produced the accused on PT Warrant, PW10 visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The accused were also involved in crime Nos.145, 149, 150 and 152/2017 under Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

4.On appearance of A1 and A2 before trial court copies furnished and charges framed against A1 and A2 under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC and A1 and A2 claimed to be tried.

5.During course of trial before trial court, PW1 to PW12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. After completion of prosecution witnesses. A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C. for which they denied and did not adduce any evidence.

6.By the judgment impugned, learned trial Court convicted the appellants / A1 and A2 for the offence punishable u/sec.420 r/w 34 of

IPC, aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants/A1 and A2 preferred the appeal basing on the following grounds :

i) The trial court without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, gave judgment contrary to law.

ii) First accused working as a contract labourer and second

-4-

Crl. A. No.10/2025 XIII AD&SJ/GWK accused also previously worked as khalasi in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant.

The complainants should five civil suits for recovery of the amount.

iii) The complainant and others followed by I.Ramesh Babu in CC 112/2018 and he is close to them and he influenced the complainant to file false complaint. There is no such employment in Visakhapatnam

Steel Plant as there are excess contract employees and knows by everybody including complainants.

iv) Second accused retired as Steel Plant employee but he did not receive any amount. The burden on complainant to prove that consideration was passed. The defacto complainant hails from same locality and there is a close intimacy. Previously, some money transactions and first accused is liable to pay such amounts to the complainant, but trial court failed to observe these things.

v) First and second accused are workers and no capacity to get them recruited as employees or workers in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant but the trial court failed to observe this aspect. There is no documentary evidence to show that accused had given passes to PW1 to PW9.

vi) Without cogent and corroborative evidence, the trial court found guilty of the accused.

vii) The trial court failed to observe that the first accused arranged passes to PW1 to PW9 after receipt of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is totally false as the accused is not working in pass section.

viii) The trial court came to false conclusion as there is a

-5-

Crl. A. No.10/2025 XIIIAD&SJ/GWK promissory note stands in the name of the accused, as such, they committed the offence by creating five promissory notes.

ix) The complainant did not pay the amount for the purpose of employment. The trial court without appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, erroneously convicted the accused and prays to acquit the accused.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.The learned counsel for the appellants/A1 and A2 argued that accused are noway concerned in this case. PW1 to PW9 did not give any amounts to the accused and they created the promissory notes to harass the accused. Further argued that there is no existence of workers post in the Steel Plant, there is no corroboration in the evidence of PW1 to PW12, no money transaction taken place among PW1 to PW9 and accused. The investigating officer without any proper investigation as it was purely civil nature, filed this false case only to harass the accused. The trial court without appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, erroneously convicted the accused and prays to allow the appeal.

10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State argued that

A1 son of A2 who was Steel Plant employee collected the amounts from

PW1 to PW9 to provide the employment. The accused induced PW1 to

PW9 to give amounts to them illegally. PW1 to PW9 categorically deposed that they gave amounts to accused for job purpose but the accused cheated PW1 to PW9 and did not repay the amounts to them.

-6-

Crl. A. No.10/2025 XIII AD&SJ/GWK

The evidence of PW1 to PW12 clearly established the essential ingredients for the charges leveled against the appellants/accused. The learned trial court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, gave correct findings and convicted the accused and there are no merits in the appeal and prays to dismiss the appeal.

11.Basing on the contentions, the following point is framed for determination :

1. Whether PW1 to PW9 paid the amounts to the accused for job purpose and accused induced them to give the amounts to the accused with false promise?

2. Whether there are any reasons to interfere with the findings given in Calendar and Judgment passed in CC 114/2018, dated 03.01.2025 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gajuwaka?

12.POINT : The case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 induced

PW1 and others to give amounts to provide jobs with false promises and induced the victims to give the amounts to the accused.

13.PW1/BodepuSuresh,PW2/KothapalliKoteswaraRao,

PW3/Marupureddy Satish, PW4/Kattimoodi Siva, PW5/Gollavalli Ramu,

PW6/Kattamoori Sagar, PW7/Bodepu Srinu, PW8/Cheekati Pavan Kumar and PW9/Salapu Raju stated to be they gave amounts to the accused for providing employment in Steel Plant as temporary workers.

14.PW1 being the defacto complainant categorically deposed that A1 would arrange job to him and he paid Rs.70,000/- on 25.12.2016 and again paid Rs.80,000/- to A1 and A1 gave gate pass and taken back the

-7-

Crl. A. No.10/2025 XIIIAD&SJ/GWK gate pass. He questioned the accused, later he gave Ex.P1 report.

Further according to PW1, as per Ex.P2 counter foil of Andhra Bank he transferred Rs.80,000/- to the accused account from his uncle’s account.

15.On perusal of Ex.P1 report, PW1 made allegations that himself and

Kothapalli Koteswara Rao, Marupureddy Satish, Kattimoodi Siva,

Gollavalli Ramu, Kattamoori Sagar, Bodepu Srinu, Cheekati Pavan Kumar and Salapu Raju gave an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the accused for providing employment at Steel Plant main gate.

16.PW1/Bodepu Suresh on 25.12.2016 paid Rs.70,000/- to A1 and A2 and again paid Rs.80,000/-, PW2/Kothapalli Koteswara Rao paid

Rs.1,60,000/-,PW3/MarupureddySatishpaidRs.1,50,000/-,

PW4/Kattimoodi Siva paid Rs.1,50,000/-, PW5/Gollavalli Ramu paid

Rs.1,50,000/-, PW6/Kattamoori Sagar paid Rs.1,50,000/-, PW7/Bodepu

Srinu paid Rs.1,50,000/-, PW8/Cheekati Pavan Kumar paid Rs.1,50,000/- and PW9/Salapu Raju paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused for the purpose of providing employment. Admittedly, the money transaction among A1 and A2 and PW1 to PW9 for illegal transaction. But PW1 to PW9 categorically deposed that they paid the amounts to the accused in the year 2016. To support their claim, Ex.P2 bank counterfoil, Ex.P3 empty non-judicial stamp papers, Ex.P4 signed blank cheque were produced by the victims. Thus, as per Exs.P2 to P4 the amounts were paid to the accused by PW1 to PW9.

17.The accused also did not deny Exs.P2 to P4. Admittedly, PW1 to

PW9 did not receive any receipts from the accused about the payments.

-8-

Crl. A. No.10/2025 XIII AD&SJ/GWK

But PW1 to PW9 categorically deposed that as they paid the amounts to the accused, as such, the accused executed Exs.P2 to P4. During cross- examination of PW1 to PW9 nothing was elicited in their favour to shaken the oral testimony of PW2 to PW9 coupled with Exs.P2 to P4.

18.A2 working in Steel Plant. Thus, the deceitful intention to attract

PW1 to PW9 with a false promise to provide the job was established.

PW1 to PW9 believing the words of A1 and A2 gave amounts to the accused.

Section 420 of IPC reads as follows :

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The oral testimony of PW1 to PW9 coupled with Exs.P2 to P4 clearly established that A1 and A2 dishonestly induced PW1 to PW9 to give the amounts with false promise to provide the jobs in the Steel Plant as workers eventhough accused 1 and 2 are noway concerned about the recruitment process which clearly established the essential ingredients for the offence u/sec.415 of Indian Penal Code cheating.

19.The evidence of PW10 going to show that on the report of LW1,

LW11 received the report from LW1 on 14.12.2017 and registered the

-9-

Crl. A. No.10/2025 XIIIAD&SJ/GWK report in crime No.148/2017 u/sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC, Ex.P5 is the registered FIR. He examined nine witnesses and recorded their statements and seized photocopies of signed promissory notes.

20.PW11/investigating officer evidence showing that he produced the accused before the court on executing PT Warrant and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The evidence of PW1 to PW9 categorically deposed that they paid the amounts for getting jobs through accused. Thus, PW1 to PW9 gave the amounts illegally towards get employment through accused. A1 and A2 convinced PW1 to PW9 to give the amounts. Thus, the essential ingredients for cheating under

Sec.415 of Indian Penal Code clearly established i.e., with regard to false promise to deliver the property.

21.On scrutinizing the entire evidence and documents, the prosecution could establish the essential ingredients for the offence punishable u/sec.420 of Indian Penal Code. The trial court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, rightly gave correct findings and sentenced the accused for the offence under Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC.

22.The contention of the appellants/A1 and A2 that the appellants/ accused did not commit any offence and to apply Sections 3 & 4 of

Probation of Offenders Act. The appellants also preferred four appeals along with this appeal relating to cheating the victims and received huge amounts. Series of crimes were registered against the accused with regard to same offence along with this case. Hence, there are no

-10-

Crl. A. No.10/2025 XIII AD&SJ/GWK merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Gajuwaka. Accordingly, the point is answered against the

appellants/A1 and A2.

23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence passed against appellants / A1/ Nagireddy

Venkata Ramana and A2 / Nagireddy Pothayya, by the learned

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Gajuwaka in CC No.114/2018, dated 03.01.2025.

The trial court is directed to take steps for execution of the conviction warrant against appellants/A1 and A2.

Office is directed to send the record in CC 114/2018 to trial court immediately.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao,

XIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gajuwaka.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No additional oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao,

XIIIAD&SJ/GWK

Copy to : The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gajuwaka along with record in

CC No.114/2018

XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.1209/23 in OS 39/23

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

Present: Sri G.Shanmukha Rao XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka.

Friday, the 28th day of June, 2024

I.A. No.1209/2023 in O.S. No.39/2023

Between : Doddi Koteswara Rao, s/o Adinarayana, Hindu, aged 63 years, r/at D.No.1-11, Juttada Village, Chodavaram Mandal, Anakapalle District (erstwhile Visakhapatnam District)

...Petitioner/Plaintiff

And

1. Yelugubanti Krishna Veni, w/o late Babaji, Hindu, aged about 52 years, r/at D.No.30-30-3, Lakshmipuram Colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam - 44.

2. Yelugubanti (Chendurthi) Usha Rani @ Usha, w/o Chendurthi Srinivasu, d/o Yelugubanti late Babaji, Hindu, aged about 33 years, r/at D.No.27-13-91, Dibbapalem, Srinagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam – 46.

3. Yelugubanti Anand Venkata Kumar @ Anand Kumar, s/o late Babaji, Hindu, aged about 30 years, r/at D.No.30-30-3, Lakshmipuram, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam – 44.

..Respondents/Defendants

This petition has come up on 18.06.2024 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Ramji and Smt.P.Hemalatha, Advocates for the petitioner/ plaintiff and of Sri R.Appa Rao, Advocate for the Respondents/Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 r/w Sec.151 of CPC seeking ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents from alienating or entering into any type of agreement with regard to the suit schedule property, till disposal of the suit.

2.The contentions of the petition affidavit are that 1st respondent is the wife, 2nd respondent is the married daughter and 3rd respondent is the son of

XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.1209/23 in OS 39/23

late Yelugubanti Babaji who died intestate on 27.09.2023 leaving behind the respondents and they succeeded the estate of deceased as legal heirs. The deceased Babaji represented the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the property site measuring an extent of 107sq.yds., bearing plot No.1153 in

Lakshmipuram Colony covered by S.NO.24/7A of Vadlapudi village, Gajuwaka mandal along with RCC slabbed building consisting of ground and first floor bearing old D.No.44-474 and new D.No.30-30-3 with plinth area of 963sq.ft.

The deceased acquired the property through the registered sale deed dated 19.02.1999 vide document No.1658/1999 of Sub-Registrar’s Office, Gajuwaka from Penumatsa Atchuta Rama Raju and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property.

(b) The deceased Babaji intended to sell away the plaint schedule property to clear family debts. The petitioner came to know the above and approached the deceased and expressed his readiness to purchase the property. After negotiations the rate was fixed at Rs.54,00,000/-. The deceased Babaji received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.01.2021,

Rs.7,00,000/- on 24.01.2021, Rs.3,00,000/- on 14.02.2021, Rs.4,00,000/- on 21.02.2021, Rs.8,00,000/- on 11.04.2021, Rs.6,00,000/- on 02.05.2021 and

Rs.18,00,000/- on 23.05.2021 and acknowledged the receipt of total amount of

Rs.51,00,000/-. The deceased Babaji executed an agreement of sale on 23.05.2021 agreeing to sell away the plaint schedule property to the petitioner for an amount of Rs.54,00,000/- and the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be paid within three months from the date of agreement of sale. The deceased also agreed to obtain all necessary records for registration of the property and agreed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner or as directed by the petitioner with stamp duty and

XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.1209/23 in OS 39/23

registration charges of the petitioner. In case the deceased failed to register the property within stipulated period, the petitioner can take possession of the property as per law. After execution of the sale agreement, the petitioner approached Babaji several times and requested him to execute registered sale deed after receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- but he postponed. The petitioner approached the deceased Babaji several times and expressed his readiness and willingness that he is ready to perform his part of the contract but the deceased did not execute the registered sale deed.

(c) The deceased Babaji died intestate leaving behind him all the respondents as legal heirs and they succeeded to his estate. The respondents being legal heirs have to execute registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner after receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-. The petitioner vexed with the attitude of the respondents, issued a registered lawyer's notice dated 13.10.2023 registered on 15.10.2023 to the respondents called upon them to execute registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner after receipt of sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-. The respondents 1 and 3 received the notice on 17.10.2023 and the intimation was sent to 2nd respondent. The respondents 1 to 3 issued reply notice dated 23.10.2023 with false and frivolous allegations without complying the notice contents. The petitioner came to know that the respondents are trying to sell away the plaint schedule property to third parties by suppressing the sale agreement. Hence, the petition.

3.The petitioner also filed third party affidavit to support his contention.

4.The respondents 1 to 3 filed counter and denied the petition contents.

Further contended that the deceased Yelugubanti Babaji never borrowed any amount from the petitioner at any point of time and never executed the

XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.1209/23 in OS 39/23

agreement of sale at any point of time. The respondents neither have knowledge about the petitioner nor the attestors and scribe and they are complete strangers. The petitioner with active support of his henchmen filed the case only to grab the money. The deceased Babaji did not have any acquaintance with the petitioner and he did not borrow any amount from the petitioner and Babaji never executed agreement of sale dated 23.05.2021. No consideration was passed on the dates mentioned in the petition. If the deceased borrowed the amount, definitely he would have demanded for registration of the sale deed in his favour during the life time of Babaji. It is unbelievable to lend Rs.51,00,000/- by way of cash to Babaji and the transaction should be made only through bank or cheque.

(b) One Shaik Ansari Valli and the petitioner colluded together and they are trying to grab the properties of deceased Babaji. Ansari Valli also filed

O.S.379/2023 on the file of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Visakhapatnam against the same respondents through same counsel. Due to death of Babaji, the petitioner and Ansari Valli taking advantage and filed both suits for their wrongful gain with fabricated documents. The signature on document dated 23.05.2021 does not belong to Babaji and it was forged and created. Babaji has no need to execute sale agreement in favour of the petitioner and he used to work in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and used to get sufficient salary. The respondents came to know that the petitioner is a vagabond and he has no such capacity to give huge amount of Rs.51,00,000/-.

The 2nd respondent is living separately with her family from the date of her marriage, she is no way concerned with the affairs of the deceased. The petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the petition.

XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.1209/23 in OS 39/23

4.During the course of enquiry, no oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

5.Heard the counsel on both sides.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents 1 to 3 are the class-1 legal heirs of the deceased Babaji. During the lifetime, Babaji agreed to sell away his property for an amount of Rs.54,00,000/- and received amount of Rs.51,00,000/- and executed sale agreement in favour of the petitioner and registration would be taken within three months but the deceased died and during his life time he did not execute registered sale deed.

The respondents 1 to 3 are class-1 legal heirs of the deceased Babaji. They have to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioner after receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-. The petitioner came to know that the respondents are trying to alienate the schedule property by suppressing the sale agreement in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner established the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the petitioner and prays to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the deceased

Babaji has no necessity to borrow huge amounts from the petitioner. The petitioner has no financial capacity to lend huge amount of Rs.51,00,000/-.

Further argued that the petitioner and one Shaik Ansari Valli colluded together and filed suits to grab the plaint schedule property. The petitioner failed to establish the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour and during the life time Babaji had no necessity to borrow the amounts from the petitioner. The respondents are not trying to alienate the

XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.1209/23 in OS 39/23

property as they did not sell away the property to anybody and prays to dismiss the petition.

7.Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property to third parties?

POINT :

8.The petitioner has to establish the prima facie case and balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the petitioner to grant temporary injunction. The petitioner property an extent of 1078sq.yds., bearing plot

No.1153 in Lakshmipuram Colony covered by S.No.24/7A of Vadlapudi village,

Gajuwaka. The building consisting new D.No.30-30-3. The petitioner pleaded that after execution of the sale agreement by the deceased Babaji and after expiry of the deceased, the respondents trying to alienate the schedule property. As per the petition pleadings an amount of Rs.51,00,000/- i.e.,

Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.01.2021, Rs.7,00,000/- on 24.01.2021, Rs.3,00,000/- on 14.02.2021, Rs.4,00,000/- on 21.02.2021, Rs.8,00,000/- on 11.04.2021,

Rs.6,00,000/- on 02.05.2021 and Rs.18,00,000/- on 23.05.2021, was paid to the deceased Babaji. The sale agreement was executed on 23.05.2021 for an amount of Rs.54,00,000/- and balance sale consideration amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- has to be paid at the time of registration. The petitioner also pleaded specific dates on which he paid the amounts to the deceased Babaji.

The respondents pleaded that deceased Babaji did not execute any sale agreement in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, no documents were marked

before the court. The petitioner filed suit for specific performance basing on

XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.1209/23 in OS 39/23

sale agreement, dated 23.05.2021. The petitioner also issued notice to the respondents 1 to 3 to execute registered sale deed in his favour.

9.The petitioner contended that during the life time, the petitioner approached the deceased but the deceased refused to perform his part of contract, later the petitioner came to know that the respondents are trying to alienate the schedule property, accordingly, he issued lawyer's notice. All the respondents gave reply to the petitioner’s counsel. The respondents pleaded about the financial capacity of the petitioner to pay an amount of

Rs.51,00,000/- on different dates. This is only interlocutory proceedings. Merits of the case cannot be decided at this stage. However, the respondents did not deny their right over the plaint schedule property.

10.The petitioner claiming the property under sale agreement dated 23.05.2021 and also claiming that he paid an amount of Rs.51,00,000/- out of

Rs.54,00,000/- of sale consideration. Only Rs.3,00,000/- has to be paid. The petitioner came to know that the respondents are trying to alienate the schedule property. The respondents 1 to 3 being the legal heirs of the deceased did not come forward to execute registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner after receipt of the balance sale consideration. If the respondents alienate the schedule property during the pendency of the suit, it leads to multiplicity of the proceedings. Further, an amount of Rs.51,00,000/- was received by the deceased Babaji during his life time as pleaded by the petitioner. If the respondents alienate the schedule property, the said monetary loss may cause to the petitioner which cannot be compensated in monetary terms. Thus, in view of the schedule property was devolved upon respondents 1 to 3 and also deceased received Rs.51,00,000/- during his life time and also the respondents did not deny their right over the plaint schedule

XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.1209/23 in OS 39/23

property, it is clearly established that prima facie case and also balance of convenience are in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner could establish the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and the petitioner is entitled to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 3 being legal heirs of deceased Babaji to alienate the schedule property to third parties. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

11.In the result, this petition is allowed and temporary injunction is granted in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents, their men and agents from alienating or entering into any type of agreements with regard to suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. In the circumstances, both parties shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28th day of June, 2024.

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao,

XIII Addl. District Judge, Gajuwaka. Appendix of Evidence

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao,

XIII ADJ / GWK.

1 XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.698/19 in OS 11/19

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

Present: Sri G.Shanmukha Rao XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka.

Thursday, the 20th day of June, 2024

I.A. No.698/2019 in O.S. No.11/2019

Between :

Achanti Sambasiva Rao, s/o late Nagaiah, Hindu, aged 74 years, retired employee, r/o HIG-A-87, Sujatha Nagar, Chinnamushidiwada, Visakhapatnam – 530 051.

...Petitioner/Plaintiff

And

1. Kantamreddy Sadhu Rao, s/o late Samudralu, Hindu, aged about 68 years, r/o D.No.24-111-29, Chinnagantyada, Visakhapatnam – 530 026.

2. Kantamreddy Siva Sankar, s/o Sadhurao, Hindu, aged about 37 years, r/o rest -do-

3. Kantamreddy Harshini, d/o Siva Sankar, Hindu, aged about 17 years, being minor represented by her father and next friend Katamreddy Siva Sankar, s/o Sadhurao, Hindu, aged about 37 years, r/o rest -do-

4. Kantamreddy Tanu Sree, d/o Siva Sankar, aged about 14 years, being minor represented by her father and next friend Katamreddy Siva Sankar, s/o Sadhurao, Hindu, aged about 37 years, r/o rest -do-

5. Kantamreddy Manoj Kumar, s/o Sadhurao, Hindu, aged about 34 years, r/o rest -do-

6. Gollapalli Ram Prajana, w/o Govinda Rao, d/o Sadhurao, Hindu aged about 29 years, r/at rest -do-

..Respondents/Defendants

This petition has come up on 16.04.2024 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.V.Veerabhadra Rao and Sri G.Apparao, Advocates for the petitioner/plaintiff and Respondents 1, 3, 5 & 6/Defendants 1, 3, 5 & 6 called absent and are set exparte and the case against Respondents 2 & 4/Defendants 2 & 4 is dismissed and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 r/w Sec.151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating the petition schedule property or creating any encumbrances thereon till disposal of the suit.

2 XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.698/19 in OS 11/19

2.The contentions of the petitioner as per his petition affidavit are that the respondents 1 to 5 approached the petitioner in the month of April, 2012 and offered to sell plot of land measuring an extent of 162sq.yds., in S.No.158/8B old S.No.21/8, patta No.177 of Chinnagantyada village, Gajuwaka by stating that they inherited the property from the father of the 1st respondent. The respondents 1 to 5 entered into an agreement of sale on 23.06.2012. The petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by cash and another Rs.9,00,000/- by way of two cheques of amount of Rs.4,50,000/- each bearing cheque

Nos.447396 and 408565, dated 23.06.2012 drawn on Visakhapatnam Co- operative Bank, Pendurthy branch, Visakhapatnam as the advance sale consideration. The balance sale consideration has to be paid within a period of four months from the date of sale agreement and registered sale deed to be obtained.

(b) Later the petitioner came to know that the respondents 1 to 5 mortgaged an extent of land Ac.0.22cents which is part and parcel of the agreement property to Smt.Movva Padmavathi and executed registered mortgage deed dated 20.10.2010. The petitioner also received telegraphic notice dated 06.09.2012 from Smt.Mamidi Varalakshmi by stating that she had a share in the property of the 1st respondent. After expiry of time limit contemplated in sale agreement, dated 23.06.2012 the petitioner addressed a letter dated 10.09.2012 to the respondents 1, 2 and 5 and by informing his readiness and willingness to obtain sale deed and also issued telegraphic notice through his advocate. The respondents 1 to 5 received the courier notice and also telegraphic notice. After some mediations with regard to dispute with Mamidi Varalakshmi, the respondents 1 to 5 informed that they 3 XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.698/19 in OS 11/19

settled the matter and she will not come in the way of registration. Later the petitioner paid entire balance agreement consideration.

(c) The respondents 1 to 6 executed a possessory sale agreement-cum- revocable General Power of Attorney, dated 24.12.2012 in favour of the petitioner with regard to schedule property. The petitioner also paid

Rs.70,300/- towards deficit stamp duty registration and other charges but the

Sub-Registrar refused to register the document on the ground that the property was acquired by VUDA and shown in the prohibitory list under Sec.22A of

Registration Act.

(d) The respondents informed the petitioner that the property was wrongly included in the list. The respondents also asked the petitioner to pay the remaining amount of Rs.17,30,000/- in addition to Rs.10,00,000/- to clear the mortgage loan of Movva Padmavathi. The petitioner paid Rs.17,00,000/-.

An amount of Rs.30,000/- paid to the 5th respondent and obtained fresh sale agreement dated 24.12.2012 from the respondents for total sale consideration of Rs.41,00,000/-.

(e) The petitioner waited two and half years, later addressed a letter to the respondents 1 to 6 on 15.12.2015 requesting them to get a certificate from the concerned revenue authorities. After receipt of the letter, the 5th respondent on 16.12.2012 gave reply to him that the concerned Tahsildar had cleared the matter. The petitioner waited for some time, later the petitioner made enquiries and came to know that the respondents postponing to register the property. Lastly, on 15.05.2019 the petitioner issued a notice to the respondents to receive balance sale consideration and to execute a register regular sale deed, but the respondents failed to register the property. The petitioner is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The 4 XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.698/19 in OS 11/19

petitioner came to know that the respondents are making hectic efforts to alienate the schedule property. Hence, the petition.

3.Respondents 1, 3, 5 & 6 were remained exparte. The petition against respondents 2 & 4/defendants 2 & 4 was dismissed.

4.During the course of enquiry, no oral or documentary evidence adduced.

5.Heard the counsel for petitioner/plaintiff.

6.Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the schedule property or creating any encumbrances till disposal of the suit?

POINT :

7.The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the petition schedule property from the respondents under sale agreement, dated 23.06.2012. Later the respondents failed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The petition schedule property an extent of 163.33sq.yds., in

S.No.158/8B. The respondents 3 and 4 are minors represented by their father.

The petitioner filed the suit for specific performance basing on the sale agreement. According to petition contents, the petitioner paid total sale consideration of Rs.41,00,000/-. Admittedly, the respondents 1, 3, 5 & 6 did not appear and were set exparte. The petitioner pleaded that the respondents are making efforts to alienate the schedule property. In the main suit also the respondents/defendants did not appear and were set exparte.

8.In view of the contentions of the petitioner, it is prima facie showing that the respondents 1, 3, 5 & 6 executed sale agreement in favour of the petitioner with regard to petition schedule property and received consideration of

Rs.41,00,000/-. The petitioner also issued legal notice to the respondents. But 5 XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.698/19 in OS 11/19

the respondents did not give any reply. There is no explanation from the respondents why they did not choose to give any reply to the lawyer's notice issued by the petitioner. The prima facie case and balance of convenience at this stage are established by the petitioner in his favour. If the respondents alienate the schedule property during the pendency of the suit, it may lead to multiplicity of proceedings and also leads to monetary loss to the petitioner which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Thus, the petitioner could establish the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour at this stage. Accordingly, the respondents can be restrained by way of temporary injunction from alienating the schedule property or creating any encumbrances. This court passed an exparte order in favour of the petitioner on 28.06.2019 and exparte order can be made absolute. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

9.In the result, this petition is allowed and temporary injunction is granted in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents 1, 3, 5 & 6 from alienating the petition schedule property or creating any encumbrances till disposal of the main suit.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20th day of June, 2024.

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao,

XIII Addl. District Judge, Gajuwaka. Appendix of Evidence

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao,

XIII ADJ / GWK.

1 XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.1293/22 in OS 21/17

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

Present: Sri G.Shanmukha Rao XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka.

Tuesday, the 18th day of June, 2024

I.A. No.1293/2022 in O.S.21/2017

Between :

Kurra Padmavathi, w/o Kurra Narasimha Rao, aged 53 years, r/at Flat No.104, Sri Vaishnavi Residency, Near Swimming Pool, M.N.Reddy Colony, Champapet, Hyderabad – 500 059.

...Petitioner/Plaintiff

And

1. The Matrusree Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam.

2. Dama Subba Rao, s/o Sri Buchayya

3. Gundubogula Rama Krishna, s/o Suryanarayana

4. Jamapani Venkateswarulu, s/o late Rama Koteswara Rao

5. Setty Ram Gopal Raja Sekhar, s/o Setty Venkata Swamy Ram Gopal

6. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC), represented by its Commissioner, Asilmetta Jn., Visakhapatnam.

...Respondents/Defendants

7. Bhomaram Choudhary, s/o Durgaram Choudhary, aged about 59 years, r/at D.No.8-12-29, Main Road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam – 530 026.

...Respondent/Proposed 7th Defendant

This petition has come up on 29.04.2024 for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.Tatavarthy Law Chambers (TLC) Sri T.V.S.K.Kanaka Raju & Co, Advocates for the petitioner/plaintiff and Smt.L.Srinivasamma, Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2/Defendants 1 & 2, Sri K.V.R., Advocate for 3rd Respondent/3rd defendant, Sri A.Murali Mohan Rao, Advocate for Respondents 4 & 5/Defendants 4 & 5, Sri V.K.R., Advocate for 6th Respondent/6th Defendant and of Sri P.Rama Rao (Ramu), Advocate for 7th Respondent/Proposed 7th Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.The petitioner/plaintiff filed this petition under Order I Rule 10 of CPC r/w

Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to add the proposed 7th defendant in short and 2 XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.1293/22 in OS 21/17

long cause titles of the suit and for carrying out necessary consequential amendments in the plaint.

2.The brief contentions of the petition affidavit are that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document

No.1230/2012, dt.10.04.2012 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 4th defendant and also cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document

No.2022/2014, dt.08.05.2014 executed by 4th defendant in favour of 5th defendant. The 6th defendant/GVMC has no authority to grant approval, permission or sanction for construction in the suit schedule property.

(b) The petitioner’s husband retired from the service in the year 2018 and has been residing in Hyderabad. The petitioner’s husband was advised by the Orthopedic Surgeon to take complete rest. The 5th respondent/5th defendant illegally without any manner of right, sold and conveyed the property to one Bhomaram Choudhary vide registered sale deed bearing document No.3704/2018, dt.17.07.2018. The document executed in favour of

Bhomaram Choudhary is illegal and Bhomaram Choudhary who is the subsequent purchaser of the property from the 5th defendant is necessary party for proper and effective adjudication of the suit and pleaded all the consequential amendments to add Bhomaram Choudhary as 7th defendant in the suit. Hence, the petition.

3.The respondents 1 to 6 did not file counter and their counter treated as nil. The 7th respondent filed counter denied the petition contents. Further contended that before purchase of the property he verified the title of his vendor and he confirmed flow of the title. The 7th respondent is not aware of any litigation on the property before purchase. The 7th respondent came to 3 XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.1293/22 in OS 21/17

know for the first time when the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 26.07.2022 and he gave reply on 09.08.2022 denying the claim of the petitioner. The 7th respondent purchased the property for valuable sale consideration and obtained plan from the GVMC by paying necessary fees and constructed building by investing crores of rupees. There is no illegality or irregularity on the part of the 7th respondent. There are no merits in the petition and liable to be dismissed and prays to dismiss the petition.

4.During the course of enquiry, no oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side.

5.Heard arguments on both sides.

6.Now the point that arises for consideration is :

Whether the 7th respondent/proposed 7th defendant can be added as a party to the suit?

7.POINT : The contention of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the 5th defendant without having any right, sold away the property to the 7th respondent. The petitioner also filed certified copy of the sale deed. The 7th respondent also did not deny the transaction. If the 7th respondent is not added as party, the rights of the parties will be effected. In the absence of 7th respondent also this court decide the rights of the plaintiff since the suit was filed for declaration. The petitioner also pleaded all the consequential amendments.

8.In the above stated circumstances and reasons, this court opined that the 7th respondent being the subsequent purchaser, is a necessary party and he can be added as party to the suit as 7th defendant. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

4 XIII ADJC, GWK

IA. No.1293/22 in OS 21/17

9.In the result, the petition is allowed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18th day of June, 2024.

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao,

XIII Addl. District Judge, Gajuwaka. Appendix of Evidence

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side

Sd/- G.Shanmukha Rao,

XIII ADJ / GWK.