Dismissed¶44

T. Rosamma v. Y. Sankaraiah

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Mar 2026AS/1249/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

T. Rosamma & T. Muneeswari v. Y. Sankaraiah and others; Appeal Suit 1249/2000, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; dismissed for default on 18-03-2026 by Justice V.Gopala Krishna Rao after appellant No.1 died during pendency and the appellants failed to respond to counsel's requests for instructions; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions (stay IA No.1/2000 CMP 9038/2000; vacate IA No.2/2000 CMP 16471/2000 under S.151 CPC) closed as sequel; underlying judgment/decree challenged was O.S.No.32 of 1998 (O.S.No.102/1991, A.S.J., Tirupathi) dated 29-2-2000 of III Addl. District Judge, Tirupathi; no merits decided, no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

As the appellants were not getting ready to prosecute the appeal, the Appeal Suit is dismissed for default, with no order as to costs. ¶44

T. Rosamma Vs Y. Sankaraiah — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[3397]

¶2

APHC010420652000

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶8

APPEAL SUIT NO: 1249/2000

¶9

Between:

¶10

T. ROSAMMA, W/O T. RAJAGOPAL R/O NO.5, NETHAJI ROAD, TIRUPATHI TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST.

¶11

T. MUNEESWARI, D/O T. RAJAGOPAL R/O NO.5, NETHAJI ROAD, TIRUPATHI TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST.

¶12

...APPELLANT(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

Y SANKARAIAH, S/O GURAVAIAH CULTIVATION R/O NO.9, NETHAJI ROAD, TIRUPATHI TOWN,

¶15

P ANANDA REDDY, (NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS APPEAL)

¶16

DR K RAM PRASAD REDDY, (NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS APPEAL)

¶17

DR B BEESHMAIAH, (NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS APPEAL)

¶18

K PRASAD NAIDU, (NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS APPEAL)

¶19

P PICHI REDDY, (NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS APPEAL)

¶20

G RAMANA REDDY, (NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS APPEAL)

¶21

M CHANDRA MODALIAR, (NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS APPEAL)

¶22

Y SRINIVASULU REDDY, (NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS

¶23

APPEAL)

¶24

B NARAYANA, (NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS APPEAL) 11. G MUNEIAH, (NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS APPEAL)

¶25

CH JAGANNADHAM, (NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS APPEAL) 13. LAKKI BHARATHI, (NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS APPEAL)

¶26

V MUNIGOPAL, (NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS APPEAL)

¶27

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶28

Appeal against the Decree and Judgment O.S.No.32 of 1998 (O.S.No.102/1991 of A.S.J., Tirupathi) dated 29-2-200 on the file of III Addl. District Judge, Tirupathi

¶29

IA NO: 1 OF 2000(CMP 9038 OF 2000

¶30

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay operation of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.32 of 1998 (O.S.No.102/1991 of A.S.J., Tirupathi) granted by the III Addl. District Judge, Tirupathi, on 29-2-2000, pending disposal of the above appeal

¶31

IA NO: 2 OF 2000(CMP 16471 OF 2000

¶32

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt: 9-6-2000 in CMP 9038/2000 in AS 1249/00

¶33

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶34

1.T LAKSHMI NARAYANA

¶35

2.K S GOPALA KRISHNAN

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1..

¶38

2.G JAGADEESWAR

¶39

The Court made the following:

¶40

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.1249 of 2000

¶41

JUDGMENT:

¶42

Learned counsel appearing on both sides are present.

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellants represented that the appellant No.1 died during the pendency of the appeal and he made several efforts to secure the instructions from the party, but they are not responding and that necessary orders may be passed. The representation made by the learned counsel for the appellants is recorded.

¶44

In view of the above representation, as the appellants are not getting ready to prosecute the appeal and therefore, the Appeal Suit is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶46

JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶47

Date.18.03.2026 CVD

T. Rosamma v. Y. Sankaraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Rosamma v. Y. Sankaraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y Ram Mohan Vs Nadir Basha

B Nagulaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. Valuri Ananda Kumar Vs Smt. Veerabathini @ Valluri Saramba

Vitta Moulika Vs Vitta Ranjith Kumar

V. Munigopal Vs Y. Sankaraiah

V. Munigopal Vs T. Muneeswari