Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Sangisapu Seetarama Rao – Appellant
Versus
B.V.S. Murthy – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment holds that unilateral cancellation of a registered sale deed is invalid and that the proper remedy for unpaid balance is a suit for recovery, not cancellation. (!) (!) - The court addresses recovery of possession and delivery of the original sale deed to the purchaser where cancellation is void, affirming entitlement to possession based on a valid registered sale deed. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment discusses procedural requirements for cancellation, emphasizing that cancellation of a registered deed must be by civil court with proper notice to parties and cannot be done unilaterally or via sub-registrar without court order. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Common Judgment :
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
The A.S. No.332 of 2005 is filed by the appellants/defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 against the common judgment, dated 21.04.2005, passed in O.S. No.242 of 1999 and O.S.No.339 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.
O.S.No.242 of 1999 is filed by the plaintiff by name Bulusu Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy against Sangisapu Sitarama Rao, Sangisapu Venkata Satya Surya Ganesh Kumar, Sangisapu Meena (died), Mangipudi Radha Krishna Sandhyavathi and Sangisapu Annapurna Devi, for seeking relief of recovery of possession and delivery of original sale deed to the plaintiff. The trial Court decreed the Suit. A.S.no.332 of 2005 is filed against the decree passed in O.S.No.242 of 1999.
2. The Transfer A.S.No.635 of 2008 is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the common judgment, dated 21.04.2005, passed in O.S. No.242 of 1999 and O.S.No.339 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.
O.S.No.339 of 2001 is filed by S.V.V.S.S. Ganesh Kumar, M.R.K.Sandhyavalli and S. Meena against B.V.S. Murthy and two others for simple suit for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
