B.CHANDRA KUMAR, A.GOPAL REDDY
Regati Ramaraju – Appellant
Versus
Neelamsetti Kataji Rao – Respondent
(Per A. Gopal Reddy, J.)
This intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge of this Court in A.S.No. 1735 of 1991 dated 23-3-2001 whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants was allowed setting aside the judgment and decree made in O.S.No. 8 of 1983, dated 4-7-1991 of the 1 Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam decreeing the suit of the plaintiff cancelling the registered sale deed dated 30-3-1978 registered on 18-7-1981 and ordering recovery of possession of the suit schedule property covered by the said sale deed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.
3. Facts in nutshell that gave rise to this appeal are that the father of plaintiff Govinda Rao was the undivided brother of Regati Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Rao (RVLN Rao, for brevity) and after partition RVLN Rao acquired the plaint schedule property along with other properties. He purchased the properties from the income of the properties that he got in partition and bequeathed all the properties to his divided brothers wife and children. The suit schedule
Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwari: AIR 1966 SC 1332. (Para 9)
Sri Chand and others v. M/s. Jagdish Pershad Kishan Chand: AIR 1966 SC 1427. (Para 9)
Thangachi Nachial v. Ahmed Hussain Malumiar: AIR 1957 Mad. 194. (Para 9)
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami: AIR 2003 SC 4548 = 2004 (1) ALT 26.4
Sree Jain Swetambar Terapanthi Vid(S) v. Phundan Singh: AIR 1999 SC 2322. (Para 9)
Bharat Dharma Syndicate v. Harish Chandra: AIR 1937 PC 146. (Para 15)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.