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

1958 Supreme(AP) 206

SRINIVASA CHARI, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Datla China Appalanarasimha Raju – Appellant
Versus
Nadimpalli Seethayamma Garu – Respondent


RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE following question has been referred to the Full Bench: "what is the scope of Sub-rule (c) of Order XXXIX, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure ?" The facts which have given me to this reference may be briefly stated. In execution of the decree obtained by him in O. S. No. 28 of 1933, on the file of the Court of the subordinate Judge of Visakhapatnam, the appellant purchased two items of property subject to the rights of the Rani of Jaipur. The appellant applied for delivery of possession of those items. When notice of this application was given to the Rani, she stated that she had made a gift of them to the respondents and that therefore, she had no longer any subsisting interest in them. The Court directed delivery of the aforesaid items to the appellant. Thereupon the respondents filed O. S. No. 9 of 1955 on the file of the District Court, Visakhapatnam, for a declaration of their title in respect of the said items and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from taking delivery of those items. This suit was eventually dismissed and against the decree of dismissal, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal in this Court. Pending the appeal, they f
























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