M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
Kasa Muthanna – Appellant
Versus
Sunke Rajanna – Respondent
1. The unsuccessful defendants preferred this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘the Code’ for brevity) assailing the decree and judgment dated 18.12.2014 of the learned II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial passed in AS.No.30 of 2014 whereby the learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the said appeal had confirmed the decree and judgment dated 28.04.2014 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial in OS.No.95 of 2005 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein against the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 for a declaration that the plaintiffs are owners of the agricultural dry land admeasuring Ac.3.03 gunats in Sy.No.110 more fully described in the schedule and plan annexed to the plaint.
2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants (‘the defendants’ for brevity) and the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs (‘the plaintiffs’ for brevity). I have perused the material record.
3. In the memorandum of objections, the defendants had raised the following three questions stating that the said questions are substantial questions of law involved in this appeal.
1. Whether the courts below ar
Bodupalli Sathaiah and others v. Koppula Pedda Linga Reddy and others (2008 (5) ALD 311);
Ramulu and others v. Sumitra Bai (died) by LRs (2013 (1) ALD 215);
Ch.S.Hanumantha Rao and others v. R.Sainath and others (1999 (6) ALD 308)
Indira v. Arumlugam (AIR 1999 SC 1549)
Jupudi Bhushanam Vs. Joint Collector
Saroop Singh v. Banto (AIR 2005 SC 4407)
Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao (2010) 14 SCC 316).
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.