IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NINALA JAYASURYA, SUMATHI JAGADAM
Iska Vijaya Kumar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
N.Vijaya Krishna – Respondent
Judgment :
Ninala Jayasurya, J.
1. These four appeals arise out of a common Judgment and Decree dated 26.06.2014 in O.S.No.37 of 2004 and O.S.No.62 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Nellore.
2. O.S.No.37 of 2004 was filed by Mr.N.Vijaya Krishna against Mr.Vijayakumar Reddy & another seeking a decree for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 24.07.2003 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.6.03 cents situated in Survey Nos.1125, 1126, 1130/A, 1130/B and 1131/A of Nellore Bit-II Revenue Village. Mr.Vijayakumar Reddy filed O.S.No.62 of 2006 (renumbered on transfer of O.S.No.375 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nellore) against Mr.N.Vijaya Krishna seeking Permanent Injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.
3. By the said Common Judgment, the learned District Judge, decreed the suit for Specific Performance and dismissed the suit for Injunction. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 26.06.2014 in O.S.Nos.37 of 2004, the 1st defendant therein i.e., Mr.Vijayakumar Reddy filed A.S.No.494 of 2014, the 2nd defendant filed A.S.No.431 of 2014 and the defendants 3 to 5, who got the
I.S.Sikandar (Dead) by Lrs., v. K.Subramani & Others
Mohinder Kaur v. Sant Paul Singh
Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Another
N.P. Thirugnanam (Dead) by LRs., v. R.Jagan Mohan Rao
Lourdu Mari David & Others v. Louis Chinnayya Arogiaswamy & Others
Baddam Prathap Reddy v. Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.