M.JAGANNADHA RAO, RANGA REDDY
Nalajala Narasayya – Appellant
Versus
Nalajala Sitayya – Respondent
( 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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.