B.PRAKASH RAO, P.DURGA PRASAD, V.V.S.RAO
MoluguRam Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Molugu Vittal Reddy – Respondent
Appeal under Section 2(2) R/W Order 43 Rule 1(4) of CPC the order/decree in I.A.No.2962 of 2001 in O.S.No.42 of 2001 dated 08-08-2002 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.
INTRODUCTION
The following question is referred to this Full Bench: “whether an appeal against order as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC, for brevity) or a regular appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, is maintainable against the Judgment/order passed under Rule 11 of Order VII of the CPC?”
BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as such) are the appellants in the Appeal Suit as well as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. They instituted O.S.No.42 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for partition and separate possession of plaint A,B and C properties. It was claimed that plaintiffs and defendants Nos.1 to 18 (hereafter referred to as such) are descendants of one Molugu Ram Reddy, who died leaving behind six sons. The fifth and sixth sons died issueless, and plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to
Ragam Yellaiah v. Chintha Shankaraiah: 2003 (5) ALT 403 = 2003 (2) An.W.R. 480 (A.P.). (Para 5)
Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad: AIR 1973 SC 2384. (Para 5)
B. Nookaraju v. M.S.N. Charities: 1994 (2) ALT 125 (D.B.) = AIR 1994 AP 334.
Nemichand v. Edward Mills Co. Ltd.: AIR 1953 SC 28. (Para 20)
Curram Seetharam Reddy v. Smt. Cunti Yashoda: 2004 (6) ALT 111 (F.B.). (Para 23)
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.