Allowed

B. Venkateswarlu v. K. Veeramma

Telangana HC3 Jul 2014AS/706/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court set aside the lower court's judgment and decree in a suit for declaration of title due to a material discrepancy between the decree describing 10x60 feet land and the plaint schedule/plan showing only 10x10 feet possession. Parties remanded to amend pleadings and try afresh.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and decree of lower Court set aside; Respondent No.1 directed to amend pleadings and plan; matter remanded for fresh disposal.

B. Venkateswarlu Vs K. Veeramma — Partition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AS.No.706 of 2008

¶2

Date:03.07.2014

¶3

Between:

¶4

B.Venkateswarlu, S/o B.Venkatappa

¶5

……Appellant

¶6

And:

¶7

K.Veeramma, W/o K.Hussain and another.

¶8

..…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the appellant: Sri C.Srinivas

¶10

Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri K.Ramamohan Mahadeva

¶11

For Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri J.Ugranarasimha

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AS.No.706 of 2008

¶14

JUDGMENT:

¶15

This Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 26.03.2008 in O.S.No.259 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

¶16

At the hearing, learned counsel for both parties fairly conceded that clause-1 of the decree, whereby the lower Court has declared the plaintiff’s title to an extent of 10 x 60 feet shown in plaint B schedule

¶17

property, runs contrary to the description of the property in schedule B of the plaint and also the plaint plan, which show that defendant No.1 is in possession of only 10 x 10 feet as against which the trial Court has passed decree for 10 x 60 feet.

¶18

This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment and decree of the lower Court are liable to be set aside only on this ground.

¶19

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the lower Court are set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to file appropriate petition for amendment of the pleadings, the schedule and the plaint plan. The appellant is also entitled to file additional written statement, in the event the amendments are carried out by respondent No.1-plaintiff. Both the parties are also entitled to adduce further evidence, if any, and thereafter, the lower Court shall dispose of the suit afresh.

¶20

As a sequel to disposal of the appeal, ASMP.No.2105 of 2012 and 122 of 2014 are dismissed as infructuous.

¶21

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶22

03^rd July, 2014 DR

B. Venkateswarlu v. K. Veeramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Venkateswarlu v. K. Veeramma

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

M/S Sunku Auto Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs Sri Syam Karthik Upadhyay and 2 Others

Thomas Joseph, Vs the Official Liquidator

Thathuru Venkateswarlu Vs Edhala Balakrishnama Naidu

Gonda Hari Prasad Vs Naroju Virender

Friends Coop Housing Society Ltd., Vs Smt. Singireddy Narsamma

Sri M.a.Moiz Abbasi Vs Mrs.Shaik Naseem Banu