Partly allowed

Katepelli Subbarao,(Died) v. Venama rAjarathamma

Telangana HC27 Jun 2013SA/881/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the reviewer of the judgment dated 11.03.2008 in S.A.M.P. Nos. 2826 and 1007 of 2008. The court allowed the petitions seeking review, set aside the impugned judgment, and disposed of the main appeal (S.A. No. 881 of 1998) based on a recorded compromise memorandum.

What did the court decide?

Review petitions allowed; earlier judgment set aside; main appeal disposed of based on compromise;

Katepelli Subbarao,(Died) Vs Venama… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

REVIEW S.A.M.P.Nos.2826 & 1007 of 2008

¶3

& S.A.M.P.No.1264 of 2014

¶4

& S.A.No.881 of 1998

¶5

COMMON JUDGMENT:-

¶6

Second Appeal No.881 of 1998 has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.08.1997 passed in A.S.No.57 of 1992 by the Additional District Judge, Khammam, whereby and whereunder, the judgment and decree dated 08.07.1991 passed in O.S.No.1 of 1989 by the Subordinate Judge at Sattupalli, has been confirmed.

¶7

Review S.A.M.P.Nos.2826 & 1007 of 2008 have been filed by both the parties seeking to review the judgment dated 11.03.2008 passed in S.A.No.881 of 1998.

¶8

Now, S.A.M.P.No.1264 of 2014 has been filed by both the parties along with the memorandum of compromise praying to record the compromise entered between them and to pass a decree accordingly.

¶9

Petitioners 4 and 5 and respondent No.2 in S.A.M.P.No.1264 of 2014 are present before this Court. It is submitted that Katepalli Ramulamma (first petitioner in S.A.M.P.No.1264 of 2014) has given special Vakalat to his counsel Addepalli Suryanarayana. The parties have filed the memorandum of compromise entered into between to the effect that plaintiffs and the legal representatives of defendant Nos.6, 9, 13 and 14 have compromised the matter with regard to the rights of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property and with regard to the claim and title of defendant No.6 (claimed by Defendant Nos.9,

¶10

13 and 14) over Acs.0.39 guntas of land in Survey No.100/A of Somavaram Village, Wyra Mandal, Khammam District. The contents of the memorandum of compromise have been read over to both the parties and they have admitted the same as true and correct. It appears that the parties have voluntarily entered into settlement.

¶11

In the circumstances, Review S.A.M.P.Nos.2826 & 1007 of 2008 are allowed and consequently, the judgment dated 11.03.2008 passed in S.A.No.881 of 1998 by this Court is hereby set aside.

¶12

Accordingly, S.A.M.P.No.1264 of 2014 is allowed recording the terms and conditions stipulated in the memorandum of compromise. Consequently, S.A.No.881 of 1998 is disposed of in terms of the compromise. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the second appeal, stands closed.

¶14

Justice B.Chandra Kumar

¶15

16^th July, 2014 Bvv

Katepelli Subbarao,(Died) v. Venama rAjarathamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katepelli Subbarao,(Died) v. Venama rAjarathamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rao Prameela Rao, W/o. Rao Srinivasa Rao, Vs Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board

Mogal Shamsheer Baig Vs Kurva Nageswar Rao

J. Ravi Kumar S/o J. Labina Vs District employment Officer

G.Anitha Rani Vs B.Prasad Rao

K. Saradamba Vs Sri Venkateswara University

G. Anitha Rani Vs The Vice Chairman and Managing Director