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

1962 Supreme(AP) 31

P.CHANDRA REDDY, VENKATESAM
Pangoti Mangarao – Appellant
Versus
Chinnadi Kishan Rao – Respondent


CHANDRA REDDY, C. J, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal filed by the 2nd defendant in O. S. No. 11/1 of 1945, Sub Court, Karimnagar, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of Srinivasachari J. in Appeal No. 495 of 1957.

( 2 ) THE essential facts may be shortly stated as follows: One Pingle Venkatarama Reddy, who had an abkari contract, entered into an agreement with the present plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 under which a sublease of that contract was obtained by the latter as evidenced by a document marked as Ex. 1. On the basis of this agreement, Venkatarama Reddy filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8658-8-0 with interest thereon as against the plaintiff and the defendants herein. This claim was contested by the present plaintiff as well as the defendants, inter alia, on the defence that the suit agreement was not executed by them. It is unnecessary to follow the career of that litigation except to state that ultimately the erstwhile High Court of Hyderabad, before whom the matter went up in second appeal, held that the agreement was executed by all the four parties i. e. , the present plaintiff and defendants and the plaintiff s claim was enforceable.

















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