M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
Dabbara Sujatha – Appellant
Versus
Madineni Ramanna – Respondent
1. These three Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the unsuccessful respondent/plaintiff are directed against three separate orders made on the same day, 14.12.2015, by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda of Anantapur District, in the three interlocutory applications, I.A.Nos.231, 229 and 230 of 2015, filed respectively for amendment of the written statement, reopening of evidence and receiving the document, certified copy of the registered partition deed dated 30.03.1984, executed amongst defendants 1 to 4 and their late father.
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri Seshadri Goalla, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter, ‘the plaintiff’) and Sri K.Venkatesulu, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants 1 and 2 (hereinafter, ‘the defendants 1 and 2’). I have perused the material record.
3. The basic facts, as per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and as could be culled out from the material on record, in brief, are as follows:
The plaintiff brought the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of an agricultural land. The defendants 1 and 2 a
Abdul Rehman and Another v. Mohd. Ruldu and Others
Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank N V and others
CHANDER KANTA BANSAL Vs. RAJINDER SINGH
Pankaja and another v. Yellapa
Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminaraya and Ors.
REVAJEETU BUILDERS Vs. NARAYANA SWAMY
Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and another
Siddalingamma and Anr. v. Mamtha Shenoy
Usha Balashaheb Swami and others v. Kiran Appaso Swami and others
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.