Remanded

Shaik Ghouse Mohiddin v. Syed Khader Bi (died)

Telangana HC18 Feb 2011SA/88/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal by the plaintiff against the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, Court holding that the appellant (defendant) was in continued possession, was remanded for reception of additional evidence and disposal on merits without going into merits.

What did the court decide?

To remit A.S.No.21 of 1990 to Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur for receiving additional evidence and disposing the appeal on merits within 6 months.

Shaik Ghouse Mohiddin Vs Syed Khader Bi (died) — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

¶4

SECOND APPEAL.No.88 of 2000

¶5

Date:18.02.2011

¶6

Between:Mr.Shaik Ghouse Mohiddin

¶7

.. Appellant.

¶8

A N D

¶9

Syed Khader Bi (Died) and others.

¶10

.. Respondents.

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1999 in A.S.No.21 of 1990 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.52 of 1984, is allowed; the judgment and decree dated 16.01.1990 in O.S.No.52 of 1984 on the file of learned District Munsif, Kanigiri is set aside.

¶14

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur in A.S.No.21 of 1990 this appeal is filed by the plaintiff.

¶15

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur has misread the evidence of D.W.1 and not properly appreciated the evidence on record, allowed the appeal.

¶16

4. It is further submitted that the lease deeds sought to be filed by the appellant clearly indicates that the appellant is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. It is further submitted that the documents evidencing possession by the appellant subsequently obtained and not filed before the lower appellate Court. The appellant, therefore, filed a petition to receive additional evidence and the same is numbered as C.M.P.No.1893 of 2000.

¶17

5. None appeared for the respondents in this appeal.

¶18

6. Since the appellant filed number of documents to prove his continuous possession and enjoyment of the

¶19

suit schedule property and as the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and allowed the appeal, it is just and necessary in the interest of justice, without going into merits, to remand the A.S.No.21 of 1990 to Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur with a direction to receive the additional evidence and to dispose of the appeal on merits, within a period of Six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, after giving opportunity to both parties. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

________________________ V.SURI APPA RAO, J

¶21

18^th February, 2011 KSP

Shaik Ghouse Mohiddin v. Syed Khader Bi (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Ghouse Mohiddin v. Syed Khader Bi (died)

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

Bonthala Venkata Chalapati , Venkaiah, Vs The State of a.P., through Sho, Pattikondar P.S.

Suvarna Rekha Exports (P) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Vs Gadamsetty sree Ramulu

Surapaneni Ram Prasad Vs The State

Kunduru Buchi Reddy Vs State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Sadhu Ramakrishna Rao, Vs Sadhu Syamala Devi

Venkudothu Shivaji Vs Parvath Mallareddy