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

1984 Supreme(AP) 141

PUNNAIAH
Konduru Ammannachary – Appellant
Versus
Rahima Khatoon – Respondent


PUNNAYYA, J.

( 1 ) THE revision petitioners are the tenants in respect of the premises bearing door Nos, 8-4-45 and 8-4-47 in the llth Ward in petitioner. Srikakulam town. The two premises belong to one Abdulla Khan. He has two sons and one daughter viz, Babu Khan, Hyder Khan and rahima Khatoon. These two premises were leased out by Abdulla Khan to the petitioners herein. Abdulla Khan has been collecting rents from the petitiners from the beginning even by the date of the petitioners. Hyder Khan and Rahima Khatoon claimed that Abdulla Khan executed registered settlement deeds Exs. A-1, date 6-4-1975 In favour of Rahima khatoon and Ex. A-11, date 6-4-1975 in favour of Hyder Khan and hence they are the owners of the two premises and consequently they become the landlords in respect of the two premises. They, therefore, issued lawyer notices Exs. A-6 and A-16 date 21-12-1977 to the petitioners informing them that they become the title holders under the settlement deeds exs. A-1 and A-11 and consequently they became the landlords in respect of the two premises in the occupation of the petitioners and they should, therefore, pay rents to them but not to their father, Abdulla Khan. The co





















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