Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Chennupati Naga Venkata Krishna, S/o. Kesava Rao – Appellant
Versus
Chennupati Jagan Mohan Rao, S/o. Madhava Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Heard Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant assisted by Ms. Kamireddy Divya, learned counsel and Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, along with learned counsel Sri Sumanth Amirapu in respective appeal and cross objection.
2. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short C.P.C) has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.197 of 2009, on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada being aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2015.
I. FACTS:
1. O.S.No.197 of 2009:
i) Plaintiff’s case:
3. The suit O.S.No.197 of 2009 giving rise to the present appeal, was filed for declaration that the plaintiff Chennupathi Naga Venkata Krishna was the absolute owner of Items I to III of the plaint schedule-'A' properties and for consequential relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties after setting aside/cancelling the compromise decree/order dated 07.07.1995 passed in I.A.No.3857 of 1995 in previously filed O.S.No.552 of 1994 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Vijayawada, being illegal, void and contrary to law.
4
(1) Daughter has been recognised and treated as a coparcener by birth with equal rights and liabilities as of that of a son – It is not necessary that a coparcener whose daughter is conferred with ri....
The plaintiff's mother became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by virtue of the Ryotwari Patta granted in her name under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversi....
The court affirmed that a compromise decree reached finality and cannot be challenged in subsequent proceedings, establishing the plaintiff's ownership and entitlement to possession.
The bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC does not apply to a stranger to the compromise, and the plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law to be determined after evidence has been le....
A compromise decree does not extinguish the right to inherit unless explicitly stated and supported by consideration; heirs retain their succession rights despite previous settlements.
A party cannot challenge a compromise decree through a separate suit due to the restrictions imposed by Order 23 Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code.
Family property - family settlement must be a bona fide one in order to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various member....
A partition suit concludes with the final decree, and parties cannot seek modification of shares based on subsequent legislative changes after the final decree is passed.
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
