Back
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Thalla Sulochana – Appellant
Versus
Thalla Isaac – Respondent
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 28-11-2011, in IA.No.248 of 2011 in OS.No.56 of 2009, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Sircilla.
2. The petitioner is defendant No.1 in the suit filed by respondent No.1 for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner is none other than the step mother of respondent No.1/plaintiff. It is the case of respondent No.1 that his father has executed a registered gift deed, which was acted upon during the lifetime of the donor by delivery of possession. The petitioner has pleaded that she is living in a part of the suit schedule premises under a family settlement and that therefore, the purported gift deed was not acted upon. The petitioner filed IA.No.248 of 2011 for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features for elucidation of the matter in dispute. This application was dismissed by the lower Court. Assailing this Order, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. At the hearing, Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously contended that the Court below has committed a
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "disapproved," or "criticized" in the provided references that suggest a negative treatment or invalidation of any case law. Therefore, based on the given data, no case is identified as bad law.
Followed / Confirmed Treatment:
The repeated references to "Thalia Sulochana v. Thalia Isaac and Anr." (e.g., in <00200046397>, <00200048173>,
The mention of the case in multiple contexts implies it is still considered relevant in legal reasoning, but no explicit confirmation of treatment pattern is provided.
Distinguished or Referenced:
The references such as "The judgments rendered in Thalia Sulochana v. Thalia Isaac and Anr., (supra) and Yenugonda Bal Reddy v. ..." indicate that the case has been cited in relation to other cases, possibly for comparison or clarification. Without explicit language, we cannot confirm whether it was distinguished or merely referenced.
Uncertain or Ambiguous Treatment:
The list does not specify treatment patterns such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "questioned." The language primarily references citations and case names without treatment indicators.
The mention of "evidence collection" and references to specific cases in procedural contexts (e.g.,
All cases listed lack explicit treatment indicators, making their judicial status uncertain. For example, <00200046397> and <00200048173> reference the same case with different citations, but do not specify whether it was followed, distinguished, or criticized.
The case
The references to Thalla Isaac and others across multiple entries suggest ongoing relevance but do not specify whether the case has been overruled or upheld.
**Source :** K. Dayanand VS P. Sampath Kumar - Andhra Pradesh Bandi Samuel VS Medida Nageswara Rao - Andhra Pradesh Isarapu Simhachalam vs Sidha Nagarathnam - Andhra Pradesh Isarapu Simhachalam VS Sidha Nagarathnam - Andhra Pradesh Kalluru Narayana Reddy vs Kalluru Chenchugandla Jaya Chandra Reddy - Andhra Pradesh
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
