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

2007 Supreme(AP) 1232

L.NARASIMHA REDDY
P. Vimaladevi – Appellant
Versus
C. Subojini – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:Mr. C.A.R.Seshagiri Rao
For the Respondent: Mr. C.Damodar Reddy

ORDER

1. The first respondent filed O.S.No.226 of 2004 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal against the petitioners and the second respondent, initially, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. An order of status quo is said to have been passed. At the instance of the first respondent, the trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner, to note the physical features. It is stated that the report is silent as to the possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule property, but gave an indication to the effect that an extent of 17 square yards of land out of the suit schedule property was encroached by the petitioners. Thereupon, the first respondent filed an application to amend the plaint to incorporate the plea of declaration of title and recovery of possession.

2. The petitioners filed their written statement pleading their own independent title to the suit schedule property, and denying the claim of the first respondent. In addition, they have made a counter-claim against the first respondent for perpetual injunction vis--vis the property. Some other proceedings, such as O.S.No.54 of 2006 ensued between the











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