Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
NYAPATHY VIJAY
Musunuri Satyanarayana – Appellant
Versus
Tummala Indira Devi – Respondent
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 19.07.2023 in E.P.No.6 of 2022 in A.T.C.No.2 of 2003 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, whereunder an application filed under Order XXI Rule 32 and Section 151 C.P.C., by the Petitioner seeking to order attachment of the property of respondent Nos.4 and 5; to send them to civil prison and to sell the land to compensate the damages was dismissed.
2. The introductory facts: The Petitioner filed A.T.C.No.2 of 2003 under Sections 16 and 15 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) against Respondent No.1 alone seeking to declare that the price of the scheduled land i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- per acre is reasonable and the same is accepted by the Respondent and for other consequential reliefs. As per the petition, the husband of Respondent No.1 late Dr.T.Veeraiah, Dr.T.Suryanarayana, Dr.T.Sashagiri Rao and T.Satya Narayana (Retired Engineer) were brothers.
3. The 1st Respondent was given General Power of Attorney by Dr.T.Suryanarayana to manage the properties, while Dr.T.Veeraiah died testate on 04.02.2002. Pursuant to a Will said to have been executed by Dr.T.Veeraiah, the
Intentional violation of an injunction order must be established for enforcement under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC.
The inherent power of courts to restore possession is affirmed, allowing rectification of wrongful dispossession even outside strict provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
Mesne profits are inherent in restitution and can be awarded even without a specific decree for possession, based on the principle of unjust enrichment.
Possession rights under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. must be determined without infringing on principles of natural justice, particularly regarding notice and hearing.
whether Section 35 of the Act is mandatory or directory the sale held in violation of the said provision is only illegal but not a nullity and therefore, it can be set aside only in the manner and th....
The court discussed the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure and its implications on the grant of temporary injunction.
A consent judgment is binding, preventing parties from challenging execution orders if they previously agreed to the terms, even if property boundaries are unclear.
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
