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

1961 Supreme(AP) 102

CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRI, P.CHANDRA REDDY, SRINIVASA CHARI
Dimmiti Pullayya – Appellant
Versus
Andabolu Nagabhushanam – Respondent


SRINIVASACHARI, MUNIKANNIAH, JJ.

( 1 ) THE persons concerned in S. R. No. 12795 of 1954 seek to filean appeal against the Judgment and Decree in O. S. No. 29 of 1953 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, after obtaining the permission of this Court therefor. They also filed C. M. P. No. 1393 of 1955 to excuse the delay of 44 days in filing the appeal. Both these petitions are before us.

( 2 ) A certain extent of land was carved out of the village of Telaprolu and granted in inam by the zamindar of Nuzvid in Fasli 1157. The area so carved out is known as Venkatapuram Khandriga. A title deed was granted to the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs by the Inam Commission after fixing the quit rent at rs. 2-8-0 per year. The grantees viz,. , the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs claimed venkatapuram Khandriga as an inam while the tenants of that village contested that position. The Settlement Officer held that Venkatapuram is not an estate while the special Officer reversed that finding. Consequently, the rent payable by the tenants in Venkatapuram were reduced by order No. 2034, dated 20th July, 1949.

( 3 ) THEREUPON the landlholder filed a writ app









































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