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

1993 Supreme(AP) 391

D.JAGANNADHA RAJU
Netyam Venkataramanna – Appellant
Versus
Maharkali Narasimham – Respondent


D. J. JAGANNADHA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of the suit o. S. No. 43 of 1968 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ananthapur. The first plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 8-4-1965 and during the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died and the present appellants were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 4. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the sole respondent-defendant died and respondents 2 and 3 S. Indira and G. Jayalakshmi were brought on record as L. Rs. of the first respondent. Theaverments in the plaint and the written statement are extracted in extenso in the judgment of the trial Court. It would be unnecessary to produce the elaborate pleadings. It would be sufficient for the purpose of this appeal if a gist of the plaint and the written statement are set out.

( 2 ) THE plaint schedule lands belonged to the defendant. They were originally inam lands and after the abolition of inams, ryotwari patta was granted to the defendant. The lands were always being leased out to tenants, as the defendant was residing at different places due to his service as a government official


























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