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

2005 Supreme(AP) 614

L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Vegendla Subba Rao – Appellant
Versus
Puwada Srinivasa rao – Respondent


( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises out of a decree passed by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, in o. S. No. 79 of 1991, which in turn, was confirmed by the Court of IV Additional district Judge (Fast Track Court), in a. S. No. 68 of 1999. The 2nd defendant in the suit is the appellant.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as under: the 3rd respondent was the owner of the suit schedule house in an area of 1440 Sq. feet. He sold it through a sale deed dated 29-8-1963 (Ex. A-8), to the 2nd respondent. The appellant purchased the said property under two separate sale deeds, dated 24-9-1964 (Ex. P-1) and 10-12-1991 (Ex. B-2) from the 2nd respondent. He claims to have added some more constructions on the site in the year 1972. The 3rd respondent filed O. S. No. 247 of 1972 in the Court of district Munsif, Ongole, for recovery of balance of consideration under Ex. A. 8, from the 2nd respondent. Since the property was purchased by the appellant herein, in the meanwhile, he too was impleaded as defendant No. 2 in that suit. The suit was decreed ex parte on 17-7-1972. The suit schedule property was attached and thereafter, brought to sale, on 14-6-1983. The 1st respondent emerged as th




















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