Back
V. R. K. KRUPA SAGAR
Yarra Siva Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Sakshi Sri Vijaya Lakshmi Kumari – Respondent
ORDER :
1. In O.S.No.156 of 2012, three interlocutory applications were filed by the plaintiffs and after due contest and hearing, they were disposed of by different orders and the learned trial Court allowed all the three applications. Respondents therein, who were defendants in the suit, are aggrieved of them and filed these three revision petitions. C.R.P.No.4430 of 2018 questions the correctness of order dated 09.07.2018 of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Machhilipatnam in I.A.No.400 of 2018 in O.S.No.156 of 2012. C.R.P.No.4437 of 2018 questions the correctness of order dated 09.07.2018 of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Machhilipatnam in I.A.No.398 of 2018 in O.S.No.156 of 2012. C.R.P.No.4438 of 2018 questions the correctness of order dated 09.07.2018 of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Machhilipatnam in I.A.No.399 of 2018 in O.S.No.156 of 2012. Since all these matters are connected to one another and they arose out of the same litigation, it is appropriate to dispose of all the three revisions together and therefore, this common order.
2. O.S.No.156 of 2012 is a suit filed for partition of immovable properties situated in Machilipatnam of Krishna District
In partition suits, a plaintiff is not required to seek a separate declaration of void documents, and courts must give due weight to expert testimony while scrutinizing witness credibility.
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
