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

2006 Supreme(AP) 16

V.V.S.RAO
Kamepalli Sitaramiah – Appellant
Versus
Nalluri Krishna Mohan Rao – Respondent


( 1 ) THE appellants are the defendants. The suit filed by the respondent for declaration of title, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction was dismissed by the trial court. However, on appeal, the appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit, aggrieved by which, the present second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendants. In this judgment, the parties are referred to by their status in the original suit.

( 2 ) IN the suit being O. S. No. 103 of 2000 on the file of Court of learned principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, the plaintiff alleged that the properties shown in a series in the plaint plan belong to plaintiff; whereas the properties in b series belong to defendants, that there is a small lane on the west of the house and a common passage on the east of the house in a series, that at the time of construction, the father of the plaintiff left 11/2 feet width of site to the south of the wall for eves water and for repairs of the southern wall, which is suit schedule property; and that when the plaintiff wanted to re-construct the varandah on the south, the defendants caused obstruction denying the title of the plaint










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