Back
K. MANMADHA RAO
Pidathala Girijamba W/o Venkataramana – Appellant
Versus
T. H. Nageswara Rao S/o Late T. G. Bhaskara Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
1. The unsuccessful 1st defendant has filed the present Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2023 in Appeal Suit No. 6 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri reversing the judgment and Decree dated 6.8.2018 in O.S. No. 441 of 2005 on the file of Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri.
2. The parties in this second appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case are that One Hebbar Lakshmamma filed the suit in O.S. No. 31 of 1944 on the file of the District Munsif, Penukonda, for specific performance of agreement of sale against Matta Surya and Hebbar Chalapathi (plaintiff’s grandfather). The said suit ended in compromise and compromise decree dated 27.2.1945 was passed with a condition to execute registered sale deed in favour of Hebbar Lakshmamma on payment of Rs.1,500/- by her within one year from the date of the said decree and that Hebbar Lakshmamma has got only limited rights of enjoyment over the property during her life time without alienation and the said property should devolve on her sons with absolute rights after her death. In pur
The court reaffirmed that a second appeal requires a substantial question of law, and upheld the findings of title and possession based on the evidence presented.
The court emphasized the importance of proving ownership and complying with the rules of non-joinder of parties and limitation in civil suits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents' claim of possession and tenancy was contradictory and not supported by evidence, and that the decree obtained by the first re....
Sale - Validity - Defendants were not interested or they did not try to bring their case before court and lead evidence in support of their case to with respect to sale deed being sham, bogus or frau....
The plaintiffs' suit was barred by law of limitation and estoppel, and the substantial questions of law raised by the plaintiffs were rejected.
The High Court's review in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC is limited to substantial questions of law; it cannot re-assess factual findings or interfere with the first appellate court's discreti....
A suit for possession is not barred by limitation if prior litigation has affected the rights of the parties involved. Ownership established through a Will takes precedence over claims of co-ownershi....
The possession of the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest should be considered as the possession of the plaintiffs for the purpose of Article 142 of the Limitation Act, and the sale of immovable prop....
The High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals is limited to substantial questions of law without re-evaluating the evidentiary findings of the trial courts.
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
