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

2006 Supreme(AP) 309

P.S.NARAYANA
Seepally Thirupathi – Appellant
Versus
Repelli mallikarjun – Respondent


( 1 ) THIS Court ordered Notice before Admission.

( 2 ) SRI D. Seshadri Naidu, learned counsel entered appearance representing respondents.

( 3 ) SRI T. Jagadish, the learned Counsel representing Sri V. Mehar Sreenivasarao, the learned Counsel for revision petitioners plaintiffs made the following submissions : the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners had placed the report of the commissioner before this Court and would contend that the point from which, the measurements to be taken, in fact, had not been properly fixed and the procedure to be followed under the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act also had not been followed. The learned Counsel in all fairness would submit that it is no doubt a lapse on the part of the petitioners-plaintiffs in not raising objections to the report of the commissioner, but, however, this application filed under peculiar circumstances may have to be considered on a different footing, for the reason that what is being prayed for is the scientific investigation for the purpose of actual localization whether the plaint schedule property falls within S. No. 224 or 225. The learned Counsel also explained the scope and ambit of "expert investi












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