SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1954 Supreme(Mad) 82

P.V.RAJAMANNAR
Srikakula Chinna Venkatanarayana. – Appellant
Versus
Pannapati Elias. – Respondent


Advocates:
P.V.Chalapathy Rao and K.Venkataraman for Petitioner.
T.R.Srinivasan for Respondent.

Rajamannar, C.J.-This is an application for review of the judgment and Decree in Second Appeal No.1313 of 1949. It was heard and disposed of by me on 26th February, 1953. I dismissed it on one short ground, namely, that the appellants were concluded by certain prior proceedings which eventually ended in Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.113 of 1943. The respondent filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Nandyal to recover possession of land which originally belonged to one Venkatasubbiah, the father of the defendants, who are the appellants in the Second Appeal. It was sold in execution of the decree in Original Suit No.13 of 1935 on the file of the same Court and purchased by one R.Chinnaramiah on 4th June, 1941, in Court auction. Chinnaramiah sold the property to the plaintiff respondent. The suit was brought on the allegation that the plaintiff was put in possession by the Court auction-purchaser, but the defendants subsequently dispossessed the plaintiff and took possession of the land forcibly. The main plea in defence was that the Court sale held on 4th June, 1941, was illegal and void because there was no publication of the proclamation relating to the sale. I



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top