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

1967 Supreme(AP) 141

JAGMOHAN REDDY, M.SESHACHALAPATI, O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY
Radha Bai – Appellant
Versus
Banka Chinnayya – Respondent


SESHACHALAPATI, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition originally was heard by our learned Brother, Venkatesam, J. The scope and effect of Section 89 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) fell to be decided by him. In the arguments addressed before the learned Judge, various decisions of this Court were cited including two unreported Bench decisions, viz. , G. Veera Ready v. B. Venkayya, C. M. P. No. 5309 of 1960 in C. R. P. No. 2089 of 1957 (A. P.) and T. Shankaraiah v. Laxmamma, C. R. P. No. 1911 of 1963 (A. P. ). The first-decision was not brought to the notice of the Bench that decided the second case and also certain earlier decisions were pot brought to the notice of the Bench that decided the first case. The learned Judge though) that there was a conflict between the two unreported Bench decisions relating, to a matter of procedure and referred the revision petition to a Full Bench for disposal.

( 2 ) THE facts leading up to the filing of the present revision petition may be stated briefly: The revision petitioner, Radha Bai, is the landholder and pattadar of S. Nos. 205, 208, 209, 222 and 223 of Cho

























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