Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, JJ
VIKRAM JETHALAL JOISHER – Appellant
Versus
PRATAP C JOISHER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court determined legislative compliance in land ownership disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. ownership validation requires historic document support. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. possession does not equate to ownership absent legal title. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. violating stipulated legal procedures results in nullifying property rights. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. court directed amendments in records to reflect rightful ownership. (Para 22 , 24) |
Common Judgment: (per Ch. Manavendranath Roy, J.)
These two writ appeals are preferred challenging the legal validity of the order dated 24-3-2025 of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.21407 of 2008. Therefore, these two appeals are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Respondent Nos.4 to 8 in W.P.No.21407 of 2008 are the appellants in W.A.No.397 of 2025. The appellant in W.A.No.404 of 2025 is the subsequent purchaser of the subject property from respondents 4 to 8 in W.P.No.21407 of 2008 during the pendency of the writ petition. Therefore, they sought leave to challenge the impugned order of the learned single Judge by preferring an appeal against the said order. Leave was granted as per order 27-02-2026 passed in
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
