Whether the prior unregistered and non-possessory sale agreement prevails over the subsequent attachment before judgment for recovery of the suit claim based on promissory note and what are the equities in the event of the suit for recovery of money decreed ex parte and the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale also decreed on contest subsequent to the money decree in respect of recovery of money and in enforcement of the specific performance including from execution of sale deed by the Court pursuant to the specific performance decree and whether the Courts below in the concurrent finding upholding the attachment to prevail over the sale agreement are correct, more particularly, from the amendment to Section 64 C.P.C. without any amendment to the two limbs of Order 38 Rule 10 C.P.C. = claim petition filed by the non-possessory unregistered sale agreement holder as claimant by name, Ramayanam Satish Kumar against the decree holder by name, Thamada Bhaskara Rao of the money decree based on a promissory note said to have been executed by the judgment debtor by name, Smt.Pilla Supraja.= right prevails by operation under Section 47 of the Registration Act and Order 38 Rule 10 C.P.C. and the rigour imposed under Section 64 C.P.C. does not prevail is not fully correct from what is discussed supra so also for the case not coming under the spirit of Section 64(2) of the amended C.P.C. 32. Having regard to the above, the above substantial questions of law formulated are answered in saying the Courts below are not fully correct in dismissing the claim petition of the agreement holder, R.Satish Kumar, but for, to say the claim cannot be fully allowed of R.Satish Kumar against T.Bhaskara Rao and P.Supraja, who are the decree holder and judgment-debtor respectively of the money decree, where there was also an attachment before judgment prior to filing of the suit for specific performance and what the right the agreement holder has on the date of filing of the suit for specific performance was having is at best under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, the charge, at best over the property for recovery of the advance sale consideration by virtue of the wording of Section 55 statutorily like a charge to the purchase for recovery on the property of unpaid consideration, in the event of the suit for specific performance filed and on contest decreed by also impleading the money decree holder-cum-person, who attached the property from the deemed notice, it was not done, though otherwise had it been done, the limit of the agreement holder is to the balance sale consideration to answer to the attachment before judgment has right in the property, which is subject to the sale agreement. - it is just to say the claimant, R.Satish Kumar (the specific performance decree holder) has to pay the original suit principal amount of the suit claim of Rs.6,00,000/- to T.Bhaskara Rao (the money decree holder) which amount of Rs.6,00,000/- includes adjustment by receiving back the amount deposited in the suit for specific performance in the Court with accrued interest to meet the same and also that includes any amount earlier paid under any settlement proposal through mediator or any direction of this Court or the Courts below. The said amount has to be paid within eight weeks from today, failing which T.Bhaskara Rao, money decree holder is entitled to execute and recover said Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from today onwards for balance after adjustment of what is stated supra. For any further claim of the money decree holder, T.Bhakara Rao is to proceed personally against respondent No.2/judgment debtor, Smt.P.Supraja if there is any other property of her for the reason Section 56 C.P.C., speaks a female is not liable for arrest for any recovery of a money decree.


 SECOND APPEAL No.459 of 2017   


Ramayanam Satish Kumar  .Appellant       

1.Thamada Bhaskara Rao and another. Respondents   

Counsel for the Appellant :  Sri S.Subba Reddy

Counsel  for the Respondent No.1:  A.K.Kishore Reddy
Counsel  for the Respondent No.2:  T.V.Jaggi Reddy

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:
  2008(1) ALT 10 (SC)
2 2015(5)ALT 634
3 2002 (3) SCC 676
4 1991(1) SCC 715
5 2004(2) ALD 736
6 1996 (3)SCC 289
7 AIR 1991 Kerala 152
8 1987(1) ALT 718
9 AIR 1935 Madras 193
10 AIR 1917 Madras 4
11 1939(2) MLJ 822
12 2016(1) SCC 411


SECOND APPEAL No.459 of 2017   

     This Second Appeal is arisen out of the judgment and
decree dated 31.03.2017 in A.S.No.129 of 2013 on the file of
the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, against the
dismissal of the claim petition in E.A.No.245  of 2012 in
E.P.No.115 of 2011 in O.S.No.498 of 2010 on the fil…

Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedingsunder Section 420 IPC= Since the trial has already been commenced and five witnesses have been examined, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings at this stage.


Crl.P.No.4258 of 2013


Kota Gangaram @ Gangarapu Gangaram, s/o. Hanmantha Rao, aged:38 years occ:Nil  R/o.H.No.3-2-193, Ramnagar Picket, Secunderab       

The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. . Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Katam Srinivas

Counsel for Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor (TG)
Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri R. Venkata Reddy 

<Gist :

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:



Crl.P.No.4258 of 2013


      This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.302 of 2012 on the file
of VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, against
the petitioner/A3.
2.      The petitioner is A3, who is alleged to have committed the
offence punishable under Section 420 IPC along with A1, A2 and A4
to A6.  On the complaint of the sec…

The defence of appellant before trial Court was two fold - (i) the alibi and (ii) the deceased has committed suicide. The appellant has failed to prove the defence of alibi by not producing any defence to this effect. The second defence is that he has not killed the deceased but she herself hanged and committed suicide. 19. Now, question is, why the deceased has committed suicide ? The deposition of PW-2 has proved that the appellant used to beat and harass the deceased. On the date of incident also, he beat the deceased. Accordingly, the deceased was fed-up with the harassment caused by the appellant and finished her life. We have no hesitation to say that the appellant was fully aware, while taking second defence, that he may be convicted for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, if not under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, even if the trial Court has not framed charge under Section 306 of IPC, still, the appellant can be convicted for the aforementioned offence keeping in view the dictum of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dalbir Singh (supra 1). 20. In view of the above discussion and the legal position, we hereby set aside the conviction of appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. However, we convict the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.


Crl.A.No.829 of 2011


Bandala Saya Goud...Appellant 

The State of A.P..Respondent 

#For Appellant: Ms.C.Vasundhara Reddy, Advocate. 

$For Respondent:Public Prosecutor.     


>Head Note:


(2004) 5 SCC 334


CRIMINAL APPEAL No.829 of 2011   

JUDGMENT : (Per Honble Sri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait) 
        The present appeal is preferred against the order and judgment
dated 29th November 2010, passed in Sessions Case No.335 of 2008 by 
the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, whereby, the appellant
was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and
302 of IPC.  Accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section
498-A IPC and to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under
Section 302 of IPC an…

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act).= legal representative of a holder in due course has all the rights of the holder in due course. Here, in this case, if the original payee is a holder in due course, his representative has all his rights. Therefore, rights under Sections 138 and 142 are applicable to the legal representative also if he derives title from the holder in due course. the 2nd respondent holds the cheque after the death of his father being the payee and as a legal heir he is entitled to possess the same in his own name and in view of Section 53 he is the holder in due course and can get a full discharge. Section 53 of the Act, a legal representative/heir of the payee or holder in due course can maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the complaint is maintainable. The 2nd respondent being the legal representative of his deceased father i.e., payee or holder in due course can file a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Act. As such, this Court holds that there are no merits in the criminal petition and the same is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.




M/s. Sri Sai Mourya Estates &   Projects Pvt., Ltd, & others. ..Petitioners

The State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioners: Sri D. Bhaskar Reddy.

Counsel for respondent No.1: Learned Public Prosecutor



? Cases referred

1.      2010 Crl. L.J. 2166
2.      II (2004) BC 152 (DB)
3.      IV (2010) BC 181
4.      2004 (2) KCCR 864 
5.      1984 Crl. L.J. 1326
6.      2006 (1) ALD (Crl.) 643 (A.P.)
7.      (2006) 5 SCC 530
8.      2012 (1) ALD (Crl.) 865 (A.P.)
9.      2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 305 (SC)


CRIMINAL PETITION No.8861 of 2011   


        Heard counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents.
        The present criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/
accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5, to quash the proceedings initiated