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

1995 Supreme(AP) 339

K.M.AGARWAL, V.RAJAGOPALA REDDY
G. Narasimhulu Chetti – Appellant
Versus
S. Pandurangaiah Chetti – Respondent


V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS LPA arises out of the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge in A. S. No. 1772/84, dismissing the appeal though for different reasons and confirming the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 72/75 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chittoor.

( 2 ) ORIGINALLY there were three plaintiffs. On the death of the 1st plaintiff, his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiff No. 4 and defendants 6 and 7. Defendants 1 and 2 also died and their legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 8 to 16. Defendants 2 to 5 were the tenants of the suit property. The suit was for declaration of title to the suit property, which is a house and vacant site and for possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and in appeal the learned single Judge confirmed the trial court s decree and judgment, though for different reasons. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal by the plaintiffs.

( 3 ) THE facts are not in dispute. Two ladies Kamalambal and Lokambal executed the deed Ex. A4 on 22-5-1958 in favour of P. W. 1, who is the son of Kamalambal s husband by his first wife, in respect of various properties including the suit pro























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