L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Burugupally Shiva Rama Krishna – Appellant
Versus
Cyrus Investments Ltd – Respondent
This application is filed under Rule 18 of Order XX, read with Section 151 C.P.C., by the three petitioners, who are said to be assignees of defendant No.206 in C.S.NO.14 of 1958, in respect of 116 acres of land. They pray for a final decree in their favour in respect of the said land, which is part of item No. 37 of Schedule IV, annexed to the preliminary decree.
2. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application in brief, are that, the suit was filed by one, Dildarunnisa Begum, for partition of Mathruka properties of Nawab Khurshid Jah, in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and later, it was withdrawn to this Court. The Jagir Administrator and State of Andhra Pradesh, that figured as defendant Nos.43 and 53 respectively, opposed the suit and ultimately, a preliminary decree was passed on 28-6-1963, determining the entitlement of the shares. According to them, 80% of the shareholders, including the plaintiff and several defendants sold away their undivided share, as per the preliminary decree through a registered document in favour of H.E.H. the Nizam, and his brother-in-law – Nawab Khasimnavaz Jung in the year 1965, and on an application made by the pur
Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna: 2009 (8) SCJ 281. (Para 25)
Sarwarlal v. State of Hyderabad: AIR 1960 SC 862. (Para 38)
Haji S.K. Subhan v. Madhorao: AIR 1962 SC 1230. (Para 42)
Bandari Ramachander v. Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act
State of Punjab v. Amar Singh: AIR 1974 SC 994. (Para 45)
Hope Plantations Limited v. Taluk Land Board
Indian Bank v. Sat yam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd.: (1996) 5 SCC 550. (Para 54)
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.