P.NAVEEN RAO, G.RADHA RANI
Ramesh Gaikwad, s/o. Hanmanth Rao – Appellant
Versus
Lalitha Srikrish w/o. late Srikrish Srinivasan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P.Naveen Rao, J.
Heard Sri K.Mohan, learned counsel for appellants and Sri M.Surender Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Ch.A.B.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 and 6. The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
2. The order against which this appeal is filed chronicled the facts as asserted by the parties to litigation. Therefore, for brevity, this Court is not recording all those details. Suffice to note that the suit schedule plots form part of a composite land of Acs.10.39 guntas in Sy.Nos.137, 140 and 150 of Yapral, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The plaintiffs 1 to 4 claim to have succeeded to original owners and the 5th petitioner purchased a part of the composite block. They claim to have entered into agreement with plaintiff No.6 to develop the suit schedule land. The plaintiffs claim to have obtained orders of approval of layout from HMDA and building permissions from GHMC. The suit “A to C” schedule plots are plot Nos.58 to 63, 82 and 87 to 91 in a layout named as ‘Krish Enclave’ forming part of layout developed in the composite land.
3. The plaintiff instituted O.S.No.13 of 2021 in the Court of XVI Addi
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. And Others Vs. Coca Cola Co. And Others
Bondar Singh and Others Vs. Nihal Singh and Others
K.B.Saha and Sons Private Limited Vs. Development Consultant Limited
S.Kaladevi Vs. V.R.Somasundaram and Others
Ameer Minhaj Vs. dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar
Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) through Director v. State of Haryana and another
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.