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

2010 Supreme(SC) 982

Kammana Sambamurthy (D) By LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Kalipatnapu Atchutamma (D) – Respondent


JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J. —

The original contesting parties are dead. They are now represented by their legal representatives. This is not unusual when litigation goes on for more than 25 years.

2. These two appeals, one by the legal representatives of Kammana Sambamurthy (original plaintiff) and the other by legal representatives of Kalipatnapu Atchutamma (original defendant no. 2) are directed against the judgment and decree dated December 23, 2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad. The High Court modified the judgment and decree dated July 2, 1991 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Anakapalli in a suit for specific performance of the contract. The husband of defendant no. 2 - Kalipatnapu Kamaraju - was original defendant no. 1; he is also dead. For convenience, we shall refer to the original plaintiff, ‘the vendee’; the original defendant no. 1, ‘the vendor’ and the original defendant no. 2, ‘the vendor’s wife’. The facts, as we find them, are shortly as follow.

3. On February 19, 1984, the vendor entered into an agreement of sale (for short, ‘the agreement’) with the vendee in respect of a tiled house consisting of six rooms, verandah, three mul









































































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