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

1999 Supreme(AP) 398

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
Kathala Yellaiah – Appellant
Versus
Kathala Chandraiah – Respondent


B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner-plaintiffs are the appellants in this CMA. This appeal itself is directed against an order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar dismissing the application for injunction filed by the appellants herein against the respondents. The trial Court after an elaborate consideration of the matter and upon appreciation of the documentary evidence and material available on record came to the conclusion that the appellants herein are not entitled for any relief of temporary injunction in their favour. In the trial Court, Exs. A1 to A27 were marked on behalf of the appellants herein and Exs. B1 to B8 were marked on behalf of the respondents.

( 2 ) THE appellants herein claimed to be in possession of an extent of Ac. 15. 09 gts. in Sy. No. 144 situated at Chokkalonigudem, Kondurg of Mahaboobnagar District. It is their case that the petition schedule land originally belonged to one Nalamoni Ramaiah and on his death his wife Nalamoni Venkatamma succeeded to the same and continued in possession till the year 1974-75. It is their case that during the year 1975-76 appellants 1 and 2 have occupied an extent of Ac. 7. 00 and Ac. 3. 00 respec






















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