AI Overview...
-
Uppari Muthamma - Legal documents and transactions involving her, including Power of Attorney and sale agreements, are scrutinized; some documents lack credibility or are disputed. No credence can be attached to certain sale agreements executed by her, as per the court's observations. P. Neelakanteswaramma VS Uppari Muthamma - Andhra Pradesh
-
Property Rights and Land Devolution - Muthamma, wife of Uppari Ramaiah, was a witness to sale deeds. After Ramaiah's death, his heirs, including applicants 2 to 5, inherited his share in the disputed land. The validity of land alienation by Ramaiah or the landlord is contested, with legal proceedings reflecting disputes over land rights and ownership. Uppari Muthamma VS Special Tribunal, under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad - Andhra Pradesh
-
Judicial Review and Court Proceedings - The scope of review under Article 226 of the Constitution is discussed, emphasizing that review can only be granted for manifest errors on record, not mere errors. Muthamma's cases involve petitions for review of court orders and decisions, with courts reaffirming the limited scope of review and the importance of clear, manifest errors. T. D. Dayal VS Madupu Harinarayana - Andhra Pradesh, K. Harinatha Reddy VS B. Rama Rao - Andhra Pradesh
-
Specific Case References - Neelakanteswaramma vs. Uppari Muthamma (1998) is cited, highlighting that errors requiring review must be evident on record, not just alleged mistakes. This underscores the judicial principle that review is an exception and must be based on clear, manifest errors. VEDANTA LIMITED. vs ODISHA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & Ors. - Appellate Tribunal for Electricity
Analysis and Conclusion
Uppari Muthamma's legal history involves disputes over property rights, validity of documents, and court proceedings related to land transactions. The courts have consistently emphasized the limited scope of review, requiring manifest errors for reconsideration. Her cases reflect typical land and legal disputes, with courts scrutinizing the credibility of documents and the legitimacy of land transfers.
Search Results for "Uppari Mauthamma"
1997 0 Supreme(AP) 1161 • India - Andhra Pradesh
B.V.RANGA RAJU, N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA
Uppari Muthamma in favour of Srinivasa Rao and Ex. B18 is the General Power of Attorney executed by Smt. Uppari Muthamma and others in favour of Srinivasa Rao. Exs. ... No. 4991/90 and blindness of their father Uppari Ramaiah, Mir. ... A35 is the alleged agreement of sale executed by Uppari Muthamma and others in favour of Srinivasa Rao. A perusal of these documents discloses that no credence can be attached to these documents. ... A dated 31-10-1980 alleged to have b....
1997 0 Supreme(AP) 584 • India - Andhra Pradesh
B.V.RANGA RAJU, N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA
Muthamma, the wife of uppari Ramaiah, 1st respondent, is the witness to the said sale deeds. Subsequently, the said Chandra Ramalingaiah died and his share in the disputed land devolved on his legal heirs who are applicants 2 to 5. ... A-1 and A-3 neither Uppari Ramaiah nor the landlord had any right to alienate. ... They also submitted that after the death of late Uppari Ramaiah, they got the S. ... B-9, registration of the sale deed executed by Uppari Ramaiah. On 21-11-1961, Uppari R....
2007 0 Supreme(AP) 204 • India - Andhra Pradesh
G.YETHIRAJULU
... (ii) In Uppari Muthamma and others v.
1998 0 Supreme(AP) 719 • India - Andhra Pradesh
N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA, V.RAJAGOPALA REDDY
Uppari Muihamma (supra ). This plea could not have been raised by the petitioners during the arguments in the writ petition. There was no occasion for them to raise that plea. ... Uppari Muihamma, 1998 (I) ALD 234, while considering the scope of review of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, discussed the law laid down in various decisions of the Supreme Court and observed that -"review can be allowed only (1)
• India - High Court for the State of Telangana
Uppari Narsaiah S/o Venkanna, Aged 65 years, Occ: Agriculture. 02. ... Reddy Manthamma D/o Shamaiah, i ged 35 years, Occ: Agriculture. 34.
2013 0 Supreme(AP) 632 • India - Andhra Pradesh
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, RAJA ELANGO
Uppari Muthamma (1998 (3) An.W.R. 132 (D.B). Leave as sought for, to file the Review Petition, is therefore granted. ... The petitioner (who appeared and presented his case before this Court in person) seeks review of the order of this Court dated 19.01.2011, dismissing W.A.
2001 0 Supreme(AP) 30 • India - Andhra Pradesh
R.RAMANUJAM, N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA
Uppari Muthamma, (1998) 3 Andh WR 132 : 1998 (1) Andh LD 234. ... ( 59 ) IN Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm v. K. ... Uppari Muthamma, (1998) 3 Andh Pra WR 132 : 1998 (1) Andh LD 234 while considering the scope of review of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, discussed the law laid down in various decisions of the Supreme Court and observed that :"review can be allowed only
• India - High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench)
2023 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 39 • India - Appellate Tribunal for Electricity
Neelakanteswaramma vs Uppari Muthamma: 1998(3) AnWR 132(DB) ; Shivdeo v. State of Punjab , AIR 1963 SC 1909) . ... Neelakanteswaramma vs Uppari Muthamma: 1998(3) AnWR 132(DB) ). An error, which necessitates review, should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record.
2023 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 63 • India - Appellate Tribunal for Electricity
Neelakanteswaramma vs Uppari Muthamma: 1998(3) AnWR 132(DB) ; Shivdeo v. State of Punjab , AIR 1963 SC 1909) . ... Neelakanteswaramma vs Uppari Muthamma: 1998(3) AnWR 132(DB) ). An error, which necessitates review, should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record.
Filter by Legal Phrase
