Back
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
D. VENKA REDDY S/O PEDDI REDDY – Appellant
Versus
Y. D. PRASAD S/O Y. D. SRINIVASA RAO – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.
1. Though matter is listed for admission by consent of learned Advocates appearing for both the parties, heard the arguments at admission stage itself substantially and taken up for final disposal.
2. This regular second appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2011 passed in R.A. No. 52/2005 by II Addl. District Judge, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’) which reversed the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2005 passed in O.S. No. 54/1995 by the Addl. Civil Jude (Sr. Dn.) Hospet (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’).
3. The ranks of the parties is as stated before the trial Court for easy reference and convenience.
PLAINT:
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property within the jurisdiction of Amaravathi Town Municipality, Amaravathi, as having been purchased through the Registered Sale Deed dated 30.04.1986 for Rs.24,000/- from Y.D. Hulukunta Rao, Tirumala Rao and Y.D. Raghunanda Rao, GPA holder. After purchasing the same, the name of the plaintiff was entered in all the revenue records and the plaintiff is paying t
The court must rely on expert evidence for handwriting analysis, and cannot substitute its own findings without valid reasons, especially when expert opinions are available.
The validity of a sale agreement can be undermined by strained relationships between parties, and expert testimony on handwriting is pivotal for establishing the authenticity of signatures.
Expert evidence should not displace substantive evidence in evaluating contractual disputes.
Point of Law : Substantial question of Law - Court’s power under Section 100 of the CPC can be exercised only on a substantial question of law and it is no longer res integra that such substantial qu....
Allegations of fraud must be substantially proved, and in cases of instruments voidable on the ground of fraud, the time for limitation runs from the date when the plaintiff becomes aware of the frau....
The court upheld the discretion to deny specific performance when serious doubts exist regarding the execution or genuineness of an agreement and recognized the rights of bona fide purchasers.
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
