Back
ALOK ARADHE, N. V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
M. Anand S/o. M. Seshagiri Rao – Appellant
Versus
N. S. D. Prasad Rao S/o. N. K. Rao – Respondent
ORDER :
N.V.Shravan Kumar, J
Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. P.T.P. Sastry, learned counsel for the applicants.
Dr. Sarosh Sam Bastawala, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Application No.361 of 2007 has been filed seeking to declare that the claim petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of petition A to K properties and to set aside the Bailiff’s report and panchanama dated 02.04.2007 in E.P. No.26 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, as being illegal and void. Alternatively, deliver actual, physical and vacant possession of the petition schedule A to F properties to the claim petitioners herein, by evicting the respondents No.1 to 5 if this Court comes to the conclusion that as per the Bailiff’s report dated 02.04.2007 the claim petitioners have lost their possession.
3. It is submitted that the 1st claim petitioner is the owner and possessor of Plot bearing No.23 admeasuring 300 square yards, in Sy.No.145 of Hydernagar village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing document No.974/2001 dated 28.02.2001, from its previous owners
The executing court cannot deliver possession without a final decree, and unregistered deeds do not confer valid rights; dispossession without due process is illegal.
A preliminary decree in a suit for partition merely declares shares that parties are entitled to in any of properties included in plaint schedule and liable to partition--On the basis of a mere decla....
Subsequent purchasers possess the legal right to execute possession decrees under CPC without needing an assignment of the decree.
(1) Execution of decree – A third party to decree has right to approach Court even after dispossession of immovable property, which he was occupying – Term “Stranger” would cover within its ambit, a ....
Subsequent purchasers of property cannot independently challenge a partition decree that has attained finality; their rights are limited to those of the transferor.
A plaintiff asserting ownership based on historical rights and alleged partition must be permitted to pursue relief through trial when faced with disputed claims and questions of fact.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 58 and Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, emphasizing the maintainability of a claim petition after com....
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
