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

2005 Supreme(AP) 948

B.PRAKASH RAO
State of Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
B. Anandaiah – Respondent


( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocate General along with Sri D. G. Prabhakaran, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri P. V. Vidya sagar and Sri M. Venkat Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents and at their request, the main revision itself is taken up for disposal.

( 2 ) IN this revision filed under Section 115 c. P. C. , the petitioners, the State of Tamil nadu and two other Forest Officials of that state, who are defendants 1 to 3, seek to assail the order dated 20-2-2003 in o. S. No. 217of 2001, on thefileofthe Principal senior Civil Judge, Chittoor rejecting the request of the petitioners to decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.

( 3 ) FEW facts, which are necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents/plaintiffs, who are residents of kanathala tank and surrounding villages, filed a comprehensive suit seeking for declaration that the suit schedule property consisting of 2584 acres is part of Kanathala cheruvu and part of Chittoor District of Andhra pradesh and consequently for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit property. The District collector, Chittoor and the concerned Mandal revenu








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