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

1977 Supreme(AP) 41

V.MADHAVA RAO
Hari Waman Rao – Appellant
Versus
Pappula Narsimulu – Respondent


V. MADHAVA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the plaintiffs against the order dated 23-12-1975 of the Additional District Judge, Adilabad, refusing to receive a document in evidence filed by the plaintiffs during the course of examination of a witness. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed the suit for recovery of possession on the basis of title. It is alleged that late Venkata Rao borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,000 from the defendant in the month of February, 1957 and that the suit property was put in the defendants possession by way of usufructuary mortgage for 14 years with a stipulation for appropriating the usufruct towards the debt borrowed by late Venkata Rao. A mortgage bond was also executed to that effect. The period of 14 years expired in the month of January, 1971. Since then the defendant is in wrongful possession and did not deliver possession to the plaintiffs in spite of oral demands and a lawyers Notice, D/- 10-1-1972. The defendant in his written statement denied the debt alleged to have been borrowed by late Venkata Rao, the predecessor-in-title of the suit land. It is also alleged that late Venkata Rao agreed to sell the property to the defendant in the year 1955 or so. S







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