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

1977 Supreme(AP) 366

A.RAMANUJULU NAIDU, O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY
M. Sakuntala Devi – Appellant
Versus
V. Sakuntala – Respondent


REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff-appellant filed O. S. No. 565 of 1972 in the Court of the Second Additional Child Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for specific performance of an agreement of re-conveyance dated 5-7-1967. The plaintiff sought a decree directing defendants 1 to 3 to execute a registered sale-deed after receiving a sum of Rs. 13,000. 00 from the plaintiff. On 28-3-1973 a memorandum of compromise signed by the parties and their counsel was filed and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise decree with which we are concerned was as follows:---"that in cases the plaintiff pays to the defendants 1 and 2 a sum of Rs. 13,000. 00 on or before 15-4-1973, the defendants 1 and 2 shall execute the sale-deed conveying house no. 8-3-943/1 to 4 situated at Ameerpet Cross Roads, Hyderabad in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee Manieni Mudukrishna. The costs of conveyance by way of execution of the sale-deed shall be borne by the plaintiff alone. "the very next day, the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 242 of 1973 to set aside the compromise decree on the ground that her signature to the memorandum of compromise was obtained by fraud. The plaintiff also filed I. A. No. 243 of 1973








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