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

1984 Supreme(AP) 384

V.RAMASWAMI
N. Ramachandra Rao – Appellant
Versus
Vasanta Rao – Respondent


V. RAMASWAMI, J.

( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs are, the appellants. They laid the suit for declaration of title, possession of the plaint schedule house and for mesne profits. They are the heirs of N. Gurubheem Rao and his wife Smt. N. Krishna Bai. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, the appellate court while confirming the decree that the appellants acquired title as legal representatives of Gurubheem rao and Krishna Bai, reversed the decree for possession on the ground that the appellants had to see ejectment of the respondent under the provisions of the a P Buildings (Lease. Rentand Eviction) control Act XV of 1960 (for short the act )- Dissatisfied with the reversal by the appellate court the present appeal has been filed. The facts are not in dispute. The appellants are the agnates of Gurubheem Rao and Krishna Bai. Gurubheem rao died on December 5, 1956 and his widow Krishna Bai succeeded him as the sole heir, She also died issuless on september 12, 1968. Thereafter the. appellants claimed to be the legal representatives to Krishna Bai and Gurubheem rao. The respondent was living in the suit house bearing No. 4-2-319 Motislngh Lane, sulthan Bazaar. He was paying r



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