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

2004 Supreme(AP) 750

ELIPE DHARMA RAO
M. Nagamma – Appellant
Versus
D. A. Nathan – Respondent


ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant herein who is the unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the second appeal questioning the judgment and decree dated 2-12-2000 in a. S. No. 33 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gooty reversing the judgment and decree dated 19-6-2000 in o. S. No. 199 of 1997 on the file of the court of Junior Civil Judge, Gooty, Anantapur district.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter as they are arrayed in the suit.

( 3 ) ORIGINALLY the suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their men and agents from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

( 4 ) THE facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be summarised as follows:

( 5 ) PLAINTIFF is the owner of the plaint schedule property consisting of poramboke open site and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since about 20 years. In the year 1983, she gave a representation to the President, Gram panchayat to grant patta in her name and subsequently the President recommended to the District Collector, Anantapur for granting patta in favour of the plaintiff. Su



















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