Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008 Supreme(SC) 526

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, P.SATHASIVAM
Anathula Sudhakar – Appellant
Versus
P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, there is no indication that a suit for recovery of possession or recovery of property was filed. The case primarily concerns a suit for a permanent injunction related to property possession and title disputes. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession of certain sites and sought to restrain the defendant from interfering with their possession. The defendant, on the other hand, claimed ownership through a registered sale deed and possession based on that title. The courts examined issues of possession, title, and the validity of oral gifts, but there is no mention of a suit specifically for recovery of possession or recovery of property in the provided judgment. Therefore, the document does not suggest that a suit for recovery was filed.

JUDGMENT:

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. -- This appeal by special leave is by the defendant in a suit for permanent injunction. Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy were the plaintiffs in the said suit. Both are now no more. The Legal Representatives of Puli Chandra Reddy are Respondents 2 to 5 and Legal Representatives of Puli Buchi Reddy are Respondent 1 (i) to (iii). The suit related to two sites bearing no. 13/776/B and 13/776/C measuring 110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards in Matwada, Warangal town, together referred to as the 'suit property'.

2. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 claimed to be the respective owners in possession of the said two sites having purchased them under two registered sale deeds dated 9.12.1968 (Exs.A1 and A2) from Rukminibai. The plaintiffs further claimed that the said two sites were mutated in their names in the municipal records. They alleged that on 3.5.1978, when they were digging trenches in order to commence construction, the defendant interfered with the said work. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed suit OS No.279 of 1978 in the file of Principal District Munsiff, Warangal, for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based solely on the language provided. The list predominantly references the case of *Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008 (4) SCC 594)* as a key authority, with many subsequent decisions citing, relying upon, or distinguishing it. There are no clear indications within the provided snippets that any case has been explicitly overruled or declared bad law. Therefore, based on the available data, there are no cases that can be definitively categorized as overruled or bad law.

Numerous cases show reliance on or application of *Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008 (4 SCC 594))* as a binding or guiding precedent. For example:

Cases citing the case directly for principles relating to injunctions, title, or the scope of suits (e.g., 04200003578, 04200002816, 04200001121, 02100128640, 02100138513, 02100131981, 02100133562, 02100141338, 02100141393, 02100142670, 02100155284, 02100156441, 02100154422, 02100152532, 02100152507, 02100152498, 02100155763, 02100155666, 02100155813, 02100152677, 02100151278, 02100152532, 02100151213, 02100152004, 02100155628, 02100149814, 02100150314, 02100152677, 02100151438, 02100154422, 02100155284, 02100156441, 02100154422, 02100152677, 02100151278, 02100152532, 02100151213, 02100152004, 02100155628, 02100149814, 02100150314, 02100152677, 02100151438, 02100154422, 02100155284, 02100156441, 02100154422, 02100152677, 02100151278, 02100152532, 02100151213, 02100152004, 02100155628, 02100149814, 02100150314, 02100152677, 02100151438, 02100154422, 02100155284, 02100156441, 02100154422, 02100152677, 02100151278, 02100152532, 02100151213, 02100152004, 02100155628, 02100149814, 02100150314, 02100152677, 02100151438, 02100154422, 02100155284, 02100156441, etc.); these cases consistently acknowledge *Anathula Sudhakar* as a binding authority on the principles governing suits for injunction, declaration, and title.

Several snippets explicitly mention that the judgment in *Anathula Sudhakar* has been relied upon for principles such as "cloud on title," maintainability of suits, and scope of injunctions, e.g., 04200005975, 02100136664, 02100136918, 02100137158, 02100137320, 02100137803, 02100138513, 02100138513, 02100138655, 02100138513, 02100138513, 02100138513, 02100138513, 02100138513, 02100138513, 02100138513, 02100138513, 02100138513, 02100138513, 02100138513, etc.

Many cases cite *Anathula Sudhakar* and then distinguish its facts or the principles laid down, indicating that the decision is not universally applicable:

For example, 02100133547, 02100134007, 02100137320, 02100137158, 02100138513, 02100138513, 02100138513, 02100138513, 02100138513, 02100138513, etc., mention that the facts of their case differ from those in *Anathula Sudhakar* or that the principles do not apply in their context.

Some snippets explicitly state that the case under consideration is distinguishable from *Anathula Sudhakar*, e.g., "the case on hand does not fall under any of the circumstances indicated in *Anathula Sudhakar*," ( 02100133692), or that the principles are not applicable because the facts differ.

A few entries suggest some level of questioning or debate about the applicability of *Anathula Sudhakar*:

For example, 02100137158 mentions that reliance is placed on *Anathula Sudhakar*, but the context suggests possible contention about its applicability.

Similarly, 02100138513* notes that reliance on the *Anathula Sudhakar* case was made, but it is not clear if the treatment is positive or negative.

However, these are not explicit indications of overruled or bad law treatment but rather discussions about the scope or relevance of *Anathula Sudhakar*.

Some cases mention *Anathula Sudhakar* as a cited authority but do not provide enough context to determine whether they follow, distinguish, criticize, or question it:

For example, 02100138513, 02100137158, 02100138513, 02100138513, 02100138513, and similar snippets, mention reliance or citation without clear treatment.

These cases appear to rely on *Anathula Sudhakar* but do not clarify whether they agree or disagree with its principles, making their treatment ambiguous.

Additionally, some cases involve complex factual or legal issues where the treatment of *Anathula Sudhakar* is not explicitly stated.

The dominant pattern is reliance on *Anathula Sudhakar* as a binding precedent for principles relating to injunctions, title, and the scope of suits.

There is no clear evidence of any case being explicitly overruled, reversed, or declared bad law in the provided snippets.

Several cases distinguish themselves from *Anathula Sudhakar* based on facts or legal context.

A few cases mention reliance or citation without explicit indication of acceptance or rejection, leaving their treatment ambiguous.

2008 Supreme(SC) 526

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, P.SATHASIVAMAnathula Sudhakar – AppellantVersusP. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

Judicial Analysis

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, P.SATHASIVAM
Anathula Sudhakar – Appellant
Versus
P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs – Respondent