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

1973 Supreme(AP) 66

A.R.LAKSHMANAN, C.KONDAIAH
Bamadev Panigrahi – Appellant
Versus
Monorama Raj – Respondent


KONDAIAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, in O. S. No. 76 of 1966 decreeing the plaintiffs suit for the recovery of a sum of the equipment of a cinema concern known as Kumar Touring Talkies.

( 2 ) THE material facts leading to this appeal may briefly be stated : The plaintiffs husband, late Profulla Kumar Raj and the defendant were friends. According to the plaint allegations, the plaintiffs husband had obtained a possessory mortgage. On 1-9-1957 from the Raja of Mandasa on 1-9-1957 from the raja of Mandasa in respect of a site measuring about Ac. 3-51 cents known as pula Thota which contains a bunglow in it, for a sum of Rs. 4,000. 00 with a view to run to cinema in that place. Profulla Kumar Raj, the plaintiffs husband, advanced from the year 1952 till the end of 1959 various sums amounting to Rs. 15,000. 00 to the defendant to meet his obligations under forest contracts which he had entered into with the Raja Seheb of Mandasa. The plaintiffs husband built a temporary cinema structure and erected a temporary pandal in a portion of the plaint schedule site. For the purpose of the pla






















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