C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
Y. Venkataramana Reddy, Chittoor Dist – Appellant
Versus
D. Jayamma, Chittoor Dist – Respondent
C. Praveen Kumar, J.—Aggrieved by the order, dated 24.03.2017, passed in I.A. No. 606 of 2016 in O.S. No. 43 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, wherein an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to amend the plaint was allowed, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under Article 227 of the Contitution of India.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 43 of 2012 seeking division of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff being her ancestral right and another 1/3rd share from out of the share of her father with metes and bounds by taking into consideration the good and bad qualities. Pending the said suit, I.A. No. 606 of 2016 came to be filed by the plaintiff to add one more item of the family property to the suit schedule property and to make consequential amendments therein.
3. A counter came to be filed by the petitioners stating that the property mentioned in O.S. No. 69 of 2016 is a separate property of first petitioner and that the same does not belonged to Yarlagadda Ramaiah, who was never in po
P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and others (2009) 14 SCC 525
P. Prakash v. Poosa Muthyalu and others 2015(5) ALD 19
Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand (2008)5 SCC 117
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.