Appeals under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act were dismissed as infructuous by the High Court since the underlying cause did not survive for consideration. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ar xvorJFaBHEoF TELANGAN'A
]/O.NDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRt JUS-TtgE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO rHE HoNouRo"'-= .*i.L?rrcE r.vrNoD KUMAR
CIVIL M ISCE LLAN EOUS APP EA NOS 112. 113 AND1 14 0F 20 17
CMA.NO. 112 0 F 2017i
Appear under Section 47 0f Guardian and wards Act against the JudgmenuDecree in G.w.o.p.No.1 of 2016 dated ob.12.2o16on the fire of the court of the Vlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, I/edak.
Between:
Both are residents FJo.H. No.4-96/3, opp.saraswathi Vidya Mandir, chandnagar, Serilingampalty Mandat, Ranga Reddy Oijtiict---
AND
...APPELLANTS/PET|T|ONERS
ALL CONCERNED.
...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellants: SRI V. SATYANARAYANA FOR SRI V. S. R. ANJANEYALU
Counsel for the Respondent: --
c M A.NO.113 0F 2017:
Appeal Under'Section 47 of Guardian and Wards Act against the Judgment/Decree in G.W.O.P.No.3 of 2016 dated 05.12.2016 on the file of the Court of the VlllAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Medak.
Between:
Mudigonda Gurucharan, S/o. Shekharaiah, aged about 42 years, Rl/o. H.No.5-38, Adarsh Nagar Colony, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
...APPELLANT/Respondent
AND
ALL CONCERNED
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
cou nseI f or the AppeI la nts : s Rl';:iJ:3Yit:tlt.llx,
Counselfor the Respondent: --
CM ,1 40 2 17 and WardsAct against the Appeal UnderSection 47 of Guardian .12.2016on the file of the Court of JudgmenUDecreein G W O.P No 2 of 2016 dated05 the Vlll AdditionalDistrict and SessionsJudge' Medak'
Between:
AllareresidentsR/o.H.No'4-96/3,opp.SafaswathiVidyaMandir'Chandnagar, Sliriiingampal,Mandal, Ranga Reddy District'
...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS
AND
ALL CONCERNED,
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellants:SRI V. SATYANARAYANAFOR SRI V. S. R. ANJANEYALU
Gounsel for the ResPondent: --
The Court delivered the following:JUDGMENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
CMA.No.s lt2. ltB & 114 of 2Ot7
JUDGMENT: (Per Si Justtce M.S.Ramachandra Rao)
Sri V.Satyanarayana, Counsel representing Sri V.S.R.AnjaneyaJu, counsel for the appellants states that the cause in these appeals does not survive for consideration and the appeals have become infructuous.
2 In view of the said submission, these Appeals are dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
any, shal1 stand closed.
I
//TRUE COPY'
Sdi. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR N-/. \
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1 . The Vlll Additional District and Sessions Judgeat tVedak.
HIGHCOURT
DATED:0510712021
JUDGMENT
1t\ €. srArF
6(
ct)
r) 30 tu2021
\ ,+
/
*r" Fs,".4.1 r.rl
CMA.NoS.112,113 AND114 ot 2017
DISMISSING THE APPEALS AS INFRUCTUOUS
Pulipati Dheeraj Kumar and ors.
Mudigonda Gurucharan
All Concerned
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
T. VINOD KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
