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

1970 Supreme(AP) 78

KUPPUSWAMY
Kalepu Pala Subrahmanyam – Appellant
Versus
Tiguti Venkata Peddiraju – Respondent


Advocates:
N. Rajeswara Rao, for Petitioner; K. B. Krishnamurthy (for No. 1) and M. Bhujanga Rao (for No. 5), for Respondents.

Judgement

ORDER :- The petitioner is the plaintiff in O. P. No. 62 of 1965, Sub-Court, Kakinada, a suit filed in forma pauperis for recovery of possession of plaint A to C Schedule properties. The Court below by its order D/-2-3-1968 held that he had means to pay and rejected his application to sue in forma pauperis. This order was confirmed by the High Court in revision and thereafter, the petitioner restricted his right only to a half share and paid a court-fee of Rs. 2,602/-.

2. Again, by his order dated 25-2-1969 the learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit was barred by time in respect of items 1, 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 (c) and 3 (a) of plaint B Schedule and items 1 and 2 (a) of plaint C Schedule. He, therefore, rejected the plaint in respect of those items. As far as item 4 of plaint B Schedule was concerned, he directed the plaintiff to file an application to treat the relief regarding Item 4 as one filed under Section 47, Civil P. C. The plaintiff has filed the above revision petition.

The main contention of the petitioner is that the court below erred in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The case of the plaintiff regarding most of the items is that the properties w









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