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

2004 Supreme(AP) 758

L.NARASIMHA REDDY
V. Dharma Reddy – Appellant
Versus
S. Hari Ram – Respondent


L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 10. 7. 2001 passed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District, in LA. No. 162 of 2001 in O. S. No. 44 of 1996.

( 2 ) THE respondent filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction. According to him, he purchased the suit schedule property from the petitioners through a saledeed dated 13. 6. 1996. The petitioners contended that the respondent is yet to pay part of consideration, and, in that view of the matter, he was not delivered the possession of the suit schedule property. It was in this context, that the respondent intended to rely upon an agreement of sale dated 23. 4,1996 said to have been executed between them.

( 3 ) THE respondent filed LA. No. 195 of 2001 calling upon the petitioners herein to produce the agreement of sale dated 23. 4. 1996 said to have been executed between them. He pleaded that the original of the agreement of sale was taken by the petitioners at the time of execution of the sale-deed on 13. 6. 1996. The petitioners did not agree with the contention of the respondent. It was in that context that the respondent filed LA. No. 162 of 2










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