M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
K. Satyamma (died) per LR A-5 – Appellant
Versus
Bhoodevi – Respondent
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.—The defendants 1 to 4 in Original Suit No.4 of 1989, on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge (Now Senior Civil Judge), Nirmal, Adilabad District (For short, ‘the trial Court’), preferred this Appeal against the impugned decree and judgment dated 30.7.1993; wherein, the Suit filed for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, which is more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint, was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
2. During pendency of this Appeal, 1st appellant herein died and her legal representatives i.e., 5th appellant herein was brought on record and 2nd appellant herein died and his legal representatives i.e., appellants 6 to 8 were brought on record as per the orders of this Court in A.S.M.P. Nos.1565 and 1562 of 2013, dated 28.2.2014.
3. The appellants 1 to 4 herein were the defendants and the respondent herein was the plaintiff before the trial Court, in O.S. No.4 of 1989. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties in O.S. No.4 of 1989 will be adopted throughout this judgment.
4. The plaintiff filed the Suit for declaration of title and recovery at possession of the pla
Commissioner of Endowments and Ors. v. Vittal Rao and Ors.
Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma and others v. Kinjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai and Ors.
Hari Rama and Anr v. Harbans Singh and Ors.
Vashdeo Bjhojwani vs. Indusind Bank Ltd.
Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Anr v. Indira Devi and Anr.
Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan
Dina ji and Ors v. Daddi and Ors.
Sawan Ranand Ors. v. Kala wanti and Ors.
Shripad Gajanan Suthankar v. Dattaram Kashinath Suthankar and Ors.
Namdev Vyankat Ghadge and Anr. v. Chandrakant Ganpat Ghadge and Ors.
Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Dev ji Kango and Ors.
Chiranjilal Srilal Goenka (Dead) by LRs v. Jasjit Singh and Ors.
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.