Back
V. R. K. KRUPA SAGAR
Potluri Somanath – Appellant
Versus
Aluri Srinivasa Rao Died Per Lr – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.) :
O.S.No.96 of 1997 was tried and was disposed of by judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs by learned Junior Civil Judge at Gannavaram on 18.08.2001. There were ten defendants in the said suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment, defendant No.2 alone preferred A.S.No.3 of 2002. Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge at Gudivada by judgment dated 16.08.2004 allowed the appeal and consequently set aside the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved plaintiffs preferred this appeal against the appellate Court judgment in terms of Section 100 C.P.C. There is sole respondent in this appeal and this respondent is defendant No.2 in the suit. Pending appeal he died. Appellant impleaded the legal representative of the deceased sole respondent arraying him as respondent No.2. Despite service of notice on respondent No.2, none entered appearance.
2. A learned Judge of this Court admitted this appeal and formulated the following substantial questions of law:
2. Whether a person who purchased the proper
The necessity of including all parties in appeals and the standards for determining bona fide purchasers were central to the court's decision.
Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to the transaction covered by Ex.A1 with reference to the claim of the 2nd appellant in O.S.No.431 of 1969 and also held the question of adver....
The plaintiff's earlier purchase and established possession outweigh subsequent claims of fraudulent title by defendants, affirming property rights under valid documentation.
Proper party inclusion is essential in property disputes, and claims of fraud must be substantiated by convincing evidence.
Plaintiffs must establish the identity of the property to succeed in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
Concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are binding and cannot be interfered with under Section 100 of the CPC.
Point of law - The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i....
The appellate court determined that the First Appellate Court erred in not properly evaluating the ownership evidence, resulting in incorrect distribution of property rights and affirming the Plainti....
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
