SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(SC) 303

V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI, V.KHALID, D.A.DESAI
M. Veerabhadra Rao – Appellant
Versus
Tek Chand – Respondent


Advocates:
A.SUBBA RAO, B.PARTHASARTHY, P.GOVINDAN NAYAR, T.S.KRISHNAMURTHY IYER, V.A.BOBDE

Judgment

D. A. DESAI, J. :- The appellant was ill-advised in filing this appeal because the more the learned counsel appearing for the appellant dived deep into a veritable dustbin of facts, the further hearing caused deep anguish more on account of the realisation as to how occasionally, and we am happy to record very occasionally, a member of the noble profession sinks to the lowest and to vindicate his actions tries to clutch at the highest.

2. One M. Ram Mohan Rao. who was described as a senior of appellant M. Veerabhadra Rao has been a practising advocate at Hyderabad. Appellant M. Veerabhadra Rao was enrolled as an advocate in the year 1961 as stated in his evidence. He joined the chamber of his senior and at the relevant time he was working in the chamber of his senior. Shri M. Ram Mohan Rao was a tenant of the premises bearing Municipal No, 3242 situated at Rashtrapathi Road, (Kingsway), Secunderabad of which respondent Tek Chand son of Lala Moti Ram was the owner. It is alleged that the respondent, his wife Mohini and son Subhash Chandra sold and conveyed the house in question by a deed of conveyance in favour of Premlata wife of Sohan Lal Saloot and daughter of Hastimal Jai




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top