SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(AP) 588

M.S.K.JAISWAL
Bharathiya Vignana Mandiram – Appellant
Versus
Veddi Sankara Rao – Respondent


Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu and Sri T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, Advocates
For the Respondent:Sri. M.S.R. Subhrahmanyam and Sri. P.N. Murthy, Advocates

JUDGMENT :

M.S.K. Jaiswal, J.

These four appeals arise out of common Judgment in O.S.No.623 of 1982 and O.S.No.110 of 1983 on the file of the learned I-Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, dated 16-09-1991, by and under which, O.S.No.623 of 1982 filed by the land owner of the schedule property for recovery of possession was partly decreed, O.S.No.110 of 1983 filed by the possessor of the schedule property under an agreement of sale, dated 26-10-1973, was partly decreed.

2. The suit schedule property comprises of an extent of 1890 Sq.Yds., of land situated in Sy.Nos.45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 situated in Laxmi Nagar, Satyanarayanapuram within the limits of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation.

3. Since both the parties were aggrieved by grant of partial relief in their respective suits, the appeals in hand are filed. While the plaintiff in O.S.No.623 of 1982 has filed A.S.No.1850 and 2074 of 1992, the plaintiff in O.S.No.110 of 1983 has filed A.S.No.2091 and 2305 of 1991.

4. Both the suits were clubbed and tried jointly by the trial Court. The evidence was recorded in O.S.No.623 of 1982 which was filed by the owner of the schedule lands for recovery of possession. The defendant in the suit f















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

Abdul Hakeem Khan VS Abdul Mannan Khadri - 1971 0 Supreme(AP) 175: A vendor cannot be permitted to except to his own title.

No keywords or phrases (e.g., "followed," "distinguished," "overruled," "reversed," "abrogated," "criticized," or "questioned") indicating any judicial treatment pattern are present in the provided case law entry. The description consists solely of a legal principle without reference to subsequent decisions or treatment, making the judicial status unclear and ambiguous.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top