Back
L.NAGESWARA RAO, M.R.SHAH
Beemaneni Maha Lakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Gangumalla Appa Rao (Since Dead) by Lrs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 6.8.2007 in Appeal Suit No. 2638 of 1993 and CMP No. 7692 of 2003, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein – the original defendant and has confirmed the judgment and decree of specific performance passed by the learned trial Court, the original defendant has preferred the present appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:
That the appellant herein – the original defendant purchased the suit schedule property admeasuring 17 acres 39 cents situated at village Billawaka, Thimmapuram Post, Kakinada Taluk, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh by a registered sale deed dated 6.10.1971. The land in question was subjected to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, which came into force in the year 1975. That vide order dated 20.11.1976, the Land Reforms Tribunal held that the appellant is holding an excess land to the extent of 0.0013 cents. It appears that a revision application was pe
None of the cases provided in the list are explicitly identified as "overruled," "reversed," or "abrogated." There is no indication in the provided text that *Beemaneni Maha Lakshmi v. Gangumalla Appa Rao* [(2019) 6 SCC 233 / AIR 2019 SC 3013]—the primary case cited throughout the snippets—has been treated as bad law.
**Category: Followed/Relied Upon**
The vast majority of the provided entries cite *Beemaneni Maha Lakshmi v. Gangumalla Appa Rao* as a governing precedent to support legal arguments, particularly regarding the plaintiff's "readiness and willingness" to perform a contract, the assessment of time as the essence of the contract, and procedural requirements for specific performance.
* **Supporting Evidence:** Snippets 04200004929, 00800047777, 00800047789, 02100143284, 02100147869, 00100076671, INDKER00000104816, 02000037316, 02100147682, and 01300040772 all use the case to establish legal principles or apply its findings to specific facts (e.g., "by relying upon the judgment," "it has been held as under," "established that...").
**Category: Distinguished**
This group contains cases that acknowledged the precedent but found it inapplicable to the specific facts of a case.
* **Entry 01000012231:** Explicitly states, "Beemaneni Maha Lakshmi (supra)... are clearly distinguishable." This indicates the court acknowledged the judgment but determined that the facts of the instant case did not warrant the same legal application.
**Category: Discussed/Referenced**
These entries reference the case as part of a review of existing authorities or procedural history without necessarily providing a transformative treatment.
* **Entry 01000012161:** Notes that the "Lordships of the Supreme Court have highlighted the point of framing of [issues]," treating the case as a reference for procedural guidance.
* **Entries 01800024609, 00300046806, 02100136406, 00800052674, 00200053290, 00300048099:** These represent citations used in legal summaries or comparative lists of cases relevant to a specific litigation.
* **00100001775, 00100000277, 00100056581:** These snippets provide general legal principles regarding the "Specific Relief Act" and the "essence of contract" rule. While they appear to be summaries of legal standards or trial level findings, they do not explicitly name the case or the treatment pattern (e.g., whether they are agreeing with or deviating from *Beemaneni Maha Lakshmi*). Given the lack of surrounding case citation, their exact status relative to the main precedent is unclear.
**Source :** Om Parkash VS Saroj Bala - Himachal Pradesh Y. V. Aparna W/o. Y. Vittal VS Panchappa s/o. Chikkaveerappa Mundargi, since deceased - Karnataka Kameshwar Choudhary VS Shravan Kumar - Current Civil Cases Kameshwar Choudhary VS Shravan Kumar - Patna Ambika Singh (since Deceased) VS Mosomat Sohagi Devi (since Deceased) - Patna K. Palani VS R. Madana Gopal (Died) Sumathi - Madras B. N. & Associates VS Pramod Kumar - Patna K. Prabhakara Rao S/o Venkateswarlu VS K. Soorya Rao S/o Sooranna - Andhra Pradesh JOSEPH KANTHARAJ S/O. LATE FRANCIS KARUNAKARAN VS JOSEPH SUNDER AUGUSTINE REDDY MAJOR - Karnataka K. M. Aruchamy Thevar (died) VS N. Srinivas - Madras S. Muralidaran VS K. Bhaskaran - Madras Basavaraj VS Padmavathi - Supreme Court GEORGE M. MATHEWS @ GEORGE vs MUHAMMED HANEEFA RAWTHER - Kerala Kuttub K. Z. VS A. Selvaraj - Madras P. Sanjeevarayudu, S/o. Nagappa VS B. Lakshminarayana Reddy (died) by L. Rs. - Andhra Pradesh Premsinh Dalotsinh Chavda VS Ashokbhai Ramniklal Tolat - Gujarat Ramshankar Rao, S/o. Late V. Suryanarayan Rao vs Nandlal Occhwani, S/o. Hungraj Occhwani - Chhattisgarh Sanjit Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Shri R D Vishwakarma vs Rupesh Kumar Sahu S/o Pusauram Sahu - Chhattisgarh Mahabir Tiwary, son of Late Shivdut Tiwary vs State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner - Jharkhand K. S. Vidyanadam VS Vairavan - Supreme Court Narinderjit Singh VS North Star Estate Promoters Limited - Supreme Court P. R. Deb And Associates: Sunanda Roy VS Sunanda Roy: P. R. Deb And Associates - Supreme Court A. Maria Angelena VS A. G. Balkis Bee - Supreme Court PADMAKUMARI VS DASAYYAN - Supreme Court
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
