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

2015 Supreme(AP) 624

M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
Akula Sangappa – Appellant
Versus
Bandam Siddappa – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:A. Ravinder Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M. Rama Rao, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’, for brevity) by the unsuccessful 2nd defendant is directed against the decree and judgment dated 02.08.2010 of the learned Principal District Judge, Sanga Reddy of Medak District passed in A.S.no.1 of 2008. The learned Principal District Judge while allowing the said first appeal had set aside the decree and judgment dated 20.12.2007 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy passed in O.S.No.407 of 2003 and had decreed the said suit for perpetual injunction filed by the sole plaintiff against the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of Ac.1.33 guntas in Sy.No.334/A/1 and another Ac.1.33 guntas in Sy.No.334/A/2 totally admeasuring Ac.3.26 guntas at Munipally village and Mandal of Medak District more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/2nd defendant (‘the 2nd defendant’, for brevity) and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff (‘the plaintiff’, for brevity). The 2nd respondent herein is the 1st defendant in the suit. I have perused the material record.

3. At the time of admission































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