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

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 792

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
3460 - NYAPATHY VIJAY
KADAMBARI SURYANARAYANA MURTHY – Appellant
Versus
GURRAM VARA PRASADARAO – Respondent


COMMON ORDER:

CRP.No.974 of 2021 is filed questioning the order dated 13.03.2020 in I.A.No.10 of 2020 in O.S.No.23 of 2015 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Sompet.

2. CRP.No.975 of 2021 is filed questioning the order dated 13.03.2020 in I.A.No.11 of 2020 in O.S.No.23 of 2015 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Sompet.

3. Brief facts of the case: The petitioners are the third parties to the suit. The 1st respondent had filed suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 29.03.2014 directing the defendants to survey the schedule land and execute registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and for other consequential reliefs.

4. As per the plaint, the plaintiff had entered into a possessory agreement of sale for purchase of schedule property for an extent of Ac.25.10 and ¼ cents @ Rs.1,40,000/- per acre. It was stated that the plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.6 lakhs to the defendants. As the defendants were not coming forward to execute the registered sale deed, the present suit was filed. The contesting Defendant No.5 filed written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff.

5. While so, the petitioners who claim to have purchased the schedule

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