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

1955 Supreme(AP) 164

Edapalli Kotamma – Appellant
Versus
Nallapaneni Mangamma – Respondent


( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal arises out of a suit filed in the Court of the district Munsif of Guntur for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove certain bunds put up by them and for a permanent injunction restraining them from obstructing the flow of surplus water from plaintiff s land. The defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. A commissioner was appointed to inspect the locality and he prepared certain plans and submitted his reports. Before the the trial began, the parties signed and filed a memorandum in Court in the following terms : "both parties agreed to abide by the decision of the hon ble Court after personal inspection. The parties are not adducing oral evidence. Documentary evidence can be received. "

( 2 ) THE District Munsif inspected the locality and placed on record a detailed note of the physical features of the locality, the height and length of the bunds and other relevant matters. On the basis of the commissioner s plans and reports and his own personal inspection, the District Munsif gave judgment for the plaintiffs. A decree was also drawn up in the usual course. Against the decree, the first defendant preferred an appeal, but the appea

















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