The High Court disposed of a civil miscellaneous appeal concerning a suit for declaration of adoption and property share, directing the lower court to complete the trial within six months.
The appeal is disposed of by directing the lower court to dispose of the suit within six months from the receipt of the order.
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.
[3258 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1210 OF 2011
Appeal under Section Order 43 Rule 1 CPC against the Judgment/Decree in l.A. No. 824 of 2010 in O.S.No. 71 o'f 201O dated 01-08-2011 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, at Wanaparthy.
Between:
...APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS
AND
(Respondent'l - dismissed Vide Court Order dated 14-09-201 6)
...RESPONDENTS/ueFeNrarn
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. KRANTI KUMAR REDDY, ADVOCATE
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI CH. RAMESH, ADVOCATE
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
THE T{ON'BLE SRI JUS'UCE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU CwIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1210 OF 2O11
RDER:
This Civil Miscelianeous Appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful appellants/plaintiffs who are the petitioners in I.A.No.B24 of 2010 in A.S.No.71 of 2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy. It appears the said interlocutory application was filed for temporar5r injunction to restrain the respondents/ defendants from alienating the schedule property pending disposal of the main suit. The maim suit is filed with a prayer to declare the l"t plaintiff as adopted son, 2nd plaintiff is the adopted daughter of late Janampeta Shanthanna and his wife Bharathamma ie., 1"t defendant and for further declaration to declare that the plaintiff Nos. l" and 2 are entitled to 1/3 share each in the plarnt schedule house, situated at Wanaparthy town. Since the application filed the petitioners / appellants was dismissed, they preferred the present appeal during 2011.
2
appellant and also learned counsel for the respondent about the stage of the suit before the trial Court.
3
the case of either of the parties to the appeal that there was
an attempt for sale of schedule mentioned property.
SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,.--.^ _ t ">-----' SECTION OFFICER
To,
dBN
HIGH COURT
DATED:2010912022
JUDGMENT
CMA.No.1210 of 2011
s IATE o
':i i
ili Xt l[\ Nlt D;
\i.: ,;:
<br>-u!
--+=€;+--
DISPOSING OF THE CMA.
@ o'$
,r-
)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil miscellaneous appeal should be disposed of by directing the trial court to conclude the suit within six months.
Whether the stay granted in the appeal will remain in force till the disposal of the underlying suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
J. Sreenivasulu
Laxmidevi @ laxmi
Janampeta Bharathamma
D. Hemalatha
Srib Naidu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
