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

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1866

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
RENUKA YARA
Alaksani Sridhar Babu – Appellant
Versus
Kampa Thirupathaiah – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M DAMODAR REDDY

Table of Content
1. expert analysis requested pre-trial. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 10)
2. disputed signatures require expert assessment. (Para 5 , 8)
3. court's dismissal reasons found unsustainable. (Para 9 , 11)

ORDER:

Heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though notice is served on the respondent, none appeared on behalf of the respondent. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition are that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No. 36 of 2019 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 09.07.2017 for a direction to the revision petitioner/defendant to execute a registered sale deed with respect to suit schedule property constituting of land admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas in Survey No. 84/A, agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas in Survey No. 184/AA, total land admeasuring Ac.2-00 guntas, situated at Pulijala village and gram panchayat, Achampet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, Telangana State. In the said suit, the revision petitioner/defendant denied the execution of Koulu bhoomi oppandamu dated 25.03.2012, agreement of sale dated 09.07.2017 and receipt dated 09.07.2017. There is a

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