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

2000 Supreme(AP) 242

A.GOPAL REDDY, N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA
T. M. Jayarama Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Bingi Sreeramaiah Chetty – Respondent


N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 1 of 1997 on the file of the learned IV Additional district Judge, Tirupati, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 4 are the appellants in a. S. No. 1108 of 1997 and defendants 5 of 10 are the appellants in A. S. No. 939 of 1998.

( 3 ) ORIGINALLY the suit in O. S. No. 143 of 1987 was filed by the plaintiffs on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Tirupati for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 17-1-1986 and for a direction to the defendants to execute a sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule properties after receiving Rs. 20,75,000/- -from the plaintiffs and in default to have the sale deed executed through the Court. Later the said suit was transferred to IV Additional district Court and renumbered as O. S. No. 1 of 1997. In these appeals the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 are interrelated to each other. 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is the daughter of defendants 1 and 2. They were running a partnership business in the name and style of M/s. Lakshmi Paradi






























































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