Dismissed

Kurapati Stalin v. Rebba Yesobu

Telangana HC3 Aug 2011CRP/458/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed civil revision petitions challenging the dismissal of applications to reopen a decree suit and recall a witness for marking an unstamped document of sale. The court observed that since the party had previously raised the same claim in a separate suit filed to set aside the decree, their arguments lacked merit and res judicata applied.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petitions No. 458 and 3341 of 2011 dismissed. No order as to costs.

Kurapati Stalin Vs Rebba Yesobu — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶5

C.R.P.No.458 OF 2011 AND

¶6

C.R.P.No.3341 OF 2011

¶7

C.R.P.No.458 of 2011: Between:

¶8

Kurapati Stalin ..... PETITIONER AND Rebba Yesobu and others ....RESPONDENTS C.R.P.No.3341 OF 2011: Between: Kurapati Stalin ..... PETITIONER AND

¶9

....RESPONDENTS

¶10

Rebba Yesobu and others

¶11

....RESPONDENTS

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.458 OF 2011 AND

¶14

C.R.P.No.3341 OF 2011

¶15

COMMON ORDER:

¶16

The 1^st respondent filed O.S.No.75 of 1989 in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Chirala, against the respondents 2 and 3 for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The suit was decreed on 24.09.1991. After the decree became final, the 1^st respondent filed E.P.No.131 of 2007 for execution of the decree. In that E.P., the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 herein filed E.A.No.738 of 2007, under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, claiming rights over the suit property. According to them, the suit property was agreed to be sold by the respondents 2 and 3 under agreement of sale, dated 05.05.1986 and that the possession thereof was also delivered.

¶17

An attempt made by them to file the agreement of sale did not fructify because it was not properly stamped, much less penalty was paid thereon. The petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 filed E.A.Nos.170 and 171 of 2009 with a prayer to reopen the suit and to recall PW.1 for marking the said document. It was stated that after the executing Court refused to take the document for want of impounding, they have accumulated necessary funds and they are ready to get the document impounded. The applications were opposed by the 1^st respondent. The executing Court dismissed the E.As. through a common order, dated 13.04.2009. Hence, these two revisions.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

¶19

It is no doubt true that an earlier attempt made by the petitioner to get the agreement of sale to be made part of record did not fructify on account of the fact that it was not properly stamped. If the matter were to

¶20

have been that simple, the present attempt, made after they accumulated the necessary resources, cannot be found fault with. The record, however, discloses that the petitioner filed O.S.No.309 of 1996 with a prayer to set aside the decree in O.S.No.75 of 1989 and the same was dismissed on 28.08.2000. The decree passed by the Court in that suit is said to have become final.

¶21

It is important to note that the very basis of the petitioner to file the said suit is the agreement of sale, dated 05.05.1986. Once their attempt to get the decree in O.S.No.75 of 1989 set aside by filing a separate suit did not fructify, there is no way, they can plead that very ground in the E.A. This court cannot ignore the facts, which are brought to its notice. The 1^st respondent was denied the benefit of the decree that was passed over several decades ago.

¶22

There are no merits and the Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J August 03, 2011 MD

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶25

C.R.P.No.458 OF 2011

¶26

AND C.R.P.No.3341 OF 2011

¶27

August 03, 2011

¶28

Kurapati Stalin v. Rebba Yesobu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurapati Stalin v. Rebba Yesobu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Rami Reddy Vs The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, and Commissioner

Burla Sreelakshmi Vs Tanikonda Venkata Subbamma

Mangamuri Hanumantha Rao Vs Mangamuri Venkata Krishna Rao

O.Ranga Lakshmi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

S.Mahipal Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Sajja Malleswara Rao Vs Sajja Nageswara rao