Back
V. R. K. KRUPA SAGAR
H. Usharani, W/o. Hasthi V. Chandrasekhar Raju – Appellant
Versus
M Ramachandra Reddy, S/o. Reddeppa Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. S.A.No.1235 of 2017 under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code is filed by defendant No.1 in the suit.
2. S.A.No.1193 of 2017 under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code is filed by defendant No.2 in the suit.
3. In both the Courts below, they suffered decree of permanent injunction which was granted in favour of plaintiff. Respondent No.1 in both the S.A.No.1193 of 2017 and S.A.No.1235 of 2017 is the plaintiff in the suit. Both the appeals arose out of the same suit and are heard together and therefore they are disposed of together by this common judgment.
4. O.S.No.82 of 2014 was a suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff as against Defendant Nos.1 and 2. After due trial learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati by the judgment dated 13.10.2016 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and thereby granted permanent injunction against both the defendants.
5. Aggrieved by that each of the defendants filed separate appeals. First defendant filed A.S.No.152 of 2016. Second defendant filed A.S.No.153 of 2016. Both the appeals were considered by learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati and by a common judgment dated 06.06.2017, he dismissed both the appeals
Narendra Bahadur Singh VS Ram Manorath Singh - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 2154: Treatment unclear. The snippet describes testimony of plaintiff no. 3 (Shiv Nayak Singh) as P.W. 3, including an "admission" in the testimony. This appears to reference the case's own facts rather than how it has been treated in subsequent cases. No keywords indicating treatment patterns (e.g., overruled, followed) are present.
Sewa Singh VS Chanan Singh - 2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 601: Treatment unclear. The snippet states a legal principle ("The existence of a passage in revenue records is paramount, and a trial court errs in granting an injunction against its use"), which appears to articulate a rule rather than describe treatment of this case by later decisions. No treatment keywords present.
State Of U. P. VS Board Of Revenue - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1417: Treatment unclear but potentially cited positively. References other cases (e.g., "Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy", "TV Ramakrishna Reddy vs. M.", "Buchi Reddy (D) by LRs. and others, (2008) 4 SCC 594", "Pratap Singh"), suggesting this snippet is from a decision citing precedents. It lacks explicit treatment language for itself or the named cases (no "followed", "overruled", etc.). Ambiguous as it may imply reliance, but no clear indicator.
Doraisamy Gounder (Died) S/o Ramasamy Gounder vs Perumal Gounder (Died) S/o Ramasamy Gounder - 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4177: Treatment unclear. The snippet details trial proceedings (witnesses examined as P.W.1-5 and D.W.1-3, exhibits marked) and mentions second appeals by defendants/plaintiffs. This describes the case's own procedural history, not its treatment in subsequent cases. No treatment keywords present.
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
