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

1991 Supreme(AP) 217

M.JAGANNADHA RAO, RANGA REDDY
Nalajala Narasayya – Appellant
Versus
Nalajala Sitayya – Respondent


M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision has been referred to a Division Bench by Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J. by order dated 26-2-1991 as he considered that the decision rendered by Kodandaramayya, J. in T. China Panduranga Rao v. B. Venkatap-paiah, (1986) 1 APLJ (Short Notes) 78 requires reconsideration. We shall first mention how the point arises and then refer to the conflicting views expressed by the two learned Judges.

( 2 ) THE petitioner before us is the plaintiff. The suit -- OS No. 95 of 1980 -- was filed initially in the Court of the District Munsif, Chintalapudi, West Godavary, and was subsequently transferred to the District Munsif s Court, Eluru, and was registered as OS No. 23 of 1985. The suit for specific performance was based on an agreement dated 25-11-1975 executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant contended that the suit agreement was got executed by the plaintiff by playing fraud and misrepresentation on him. The third defendant is claiming under an earlier agreement of sale dated 26-5-1975 pursuant to which it is stated that the registered sale deed was executed on 16-7-1980 in favour of defendants 2 and 3. Defendants 2 an














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