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

2008 Supreme(SC) 1137

ARIJIT PASAYAT, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
Nune Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Nune Ramakrisna – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants :T.V. Ratnam, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Advocate.

Judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad allowing the second appeal filed by the respondent under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’).

3.Factual background in a nutshell is as follows :

The appellant-plaintiff filed O.S. No.78 of 1990 before the Sub-Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh against the respondent-defendant. The Trial Court by the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.1995 held that the plaintiffs are the owners of the schedule property and they being the owners of the schedule property are entitled to possession. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the Trial court, the respondent-defendant preferred an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, EastGodavari District. By Judgment and Order dated 14.06.2001, the first appellate court confirmed the Trial Court’s Judgment. The respondent-defendant preferred a second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, being Second Appeal No.512 of 2001. By the impugned Judgment, the learned Sing
















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