Allowed

Chirumamilla Satyanarayana Prasad (died) v. Naraparaju Venkateswara Rao

Telangana HC19 Sept 2022SA/1149/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal challenging the reversal of a specific performance decree. The High Court held the First Appellate Court's findings perverse regarding evidence of sale deed execution and possession. It ruled the suit is within limitation as the period starts from refusal to perform. The appeal was allowed, restoring the lower court decree for specific performance.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal allowed; judgment and decree dated 21.08.2001 in A.S. No.03 of 2000 set aside; judgment and decree dated 05.05.2000 in O.S. No.183 of 1991 confirmed. No order as to costs.

Chirumamilla Satyanarayana Prasad (died) Vs… — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

|^3216l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

SECOND APPEAL NO: 1149 OF 2001

¶7

Appeal under section 100 of CPC against the^judgment and decree dated 2110812001 made in A.S.No.3 of 2000 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ivliryalaguda preferred against the decree in O.S.No.183 of^'1991 dated 05/05/2000 on the file of the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1 . Chirumamilla Satyanarayana Prasad (died), -

¶10

.....Plaintiff/ RespondenU Appellant

¶11

Appellants 2 to 5 added as LR of the deceased sole appellant

¶12

Chirumamilla Padma Kumari, Wo. Late Chirumamilla Satyanarayana Prasad FlatNo.102, Plot No,24B, Sai Nilayam, Kamalapuri Colony, Hyderabad.

¶13

Chirumamilla Venkateswara Prasad, S/o. Late Chirumamilla Satyanarayana Prasad Flat No.34, 9-1-29114, Rijhumal Mansion, S.P. Road, Secunderabad - 500 003.

¶14

S. Lalitha Sree, Wio. S.S.N. Prasad, Plot No. 44318/28, Road No. 86, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.

¶15

Ch. Anu Radha, Wo. K. Sridhar Reddy Flat No.102, PIot No,248, Sai Nilayam, Kamalapuri Colony, Hyderabad.

¶16

(App. 2 to 5 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole appellant vide c.o. dt.27.12.2012)

¶17

...APPELLANTS

¶18

AND

¶19

1 Naraparaju Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Seetharamachandra Rao Occ: Employee, Fi/o. Huzurnagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶20

2 Naraparaju Radhakrishna Rao, (died) per LRs 5 to 7, S/o. Seetharamachandra Rao Occ: Agriculture Ryo. Huzurnagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶21

3, Naraparaju Ranganadha Rao, (died) per LRs 8 & 9 S/o. Seetharamachandra Rao Occ: Agriculture R/o. Huzumagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶22

1. Naraparaju Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Venkata Rama Rao Occ: Student Rl/o. Huzurnagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶23

Somaraju Latitha, Wo.Ram Mohan Rao

¶24

Kalavala Vijaya Lakshmi, Wo.Sridhar Rao,

¶25

Burra Damayanti, Wo.Anjeneya Shastry All are R/o.Huzurnagar village and Manilal, Nalgonda District.

¶26

(Respondents Nos.5 to 7 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No.2 vide court order dated 10/08/2022in lA No.312022)

¶27

K.Sweta Bhavani, W/o.K.Mahesh

¶28

A.Seeta Bharani, Wio.A Phan shwar

¶29

(All are R/o.Huzurnagar Vrll:ge and l,4andal, Nalgonda District)

¶30

(Respondent Nos.8 and^g are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No.3. vide Court order dated 10/08/2022inlA No.6/2022)

¶31

...DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶32

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. Y RAMA RAO

¶34

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶35

THE HON'BLE SRI.IUSTICE M. LAXMAN

¶36

SECOND APPEAL No.l149 OF 2 001

¶37

Jt]DGMENT:

¶38

l. .[he present appeal has bcen directcd against thc .judenrent ar-rd dec'rce ciated 21.08.200r passed in A.S. No.03 or'2000 by thc Scnior Civil .ludge, Miryalaguda, wherein and whereby the judgnrenr and dcoree dated 05.05.2000 passed in O.S. No.l83 of l99l by the Junior Civil Jud-uc. Iluzurnagar, was reversed. The said suit was liled br the appellant hercin who is the plaintiff for specific pcrfic,nance or- contr.act and lb' perpctual injunction, and alternatively sought fbr restoration of possession if the Couft finds that the plaintiff was not in possession of Iand subsequent to filing of the suit. The said suit was decreed by the trial court hotding that the plaintiff is entitred for specific perfbmance and injunction. The respondents/defendants preferred the first appeal and the First Appellant Court reversed such judgment and decree of thc primary court.

¶39

The present second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff. For convenience, the ranks of the parties as they were referred in the suit, is maintained.

¶40

¶41

'11-.' l S, \ \o I1-19^oi'2001

¶42

:1. -[ he sunt and sllirstatlce i'l tllc case of the plaintil'l'is that thc tlrst dclcndant^$us thc^{ltb:tllLttc'oY trcr andpossessor o1' lar-rd to extenfol} Ac.l- 16 gts.^{conrpt isetl irr Sr \r'I l0/A ol't{uzurnagalvillageand I'own'} r.\als.onda I)istIict.^{I-lrc llrst tl,'lcnclant lnade the [arlcl into housc plols} ancl oflcreil ro^{sell rhc strit} 1-.l,.rt^{to tlle plair-rtil-t. Alicr rrcgotiatiotts,the} contlact^{\'as entercd on l1(llI968. The extent} 'lf^{area agreed to} purchasc ri as^{57(r sq.} I^{ru'ds.I lre plice was flxed a1 Rs'5/- per square} 1'atd,^{and total saleconsiclctr'rorr ol Rs'2,880/- was paid on the date of} saicl contracl.^{lh.- lllst de Ii'rriilLnt agrecd to execut('a registered sale} dccd as and^{rihcn d.'tlrr.Indis Itrrttl" b1"theptaintifl}

¶43

3'1-i.heptairrtil.t.rratrtecltoll.lll.eaconstructionintheyear.lg80buthe could Irot^do it^{otr rtccolrntol- lris ilaughter'stnariage On 06'08'1991'} the plaintifr^{r.cqucsred thc ll|st iiel-endantto executethe registered sale} deed. But the^{flrst defi'ndlntrlernandedRs. 10,000/-additionalamount} and the sarrtc^{wasnot acceptcci. On 16 08'1991, the delendants tried to} occupythesuitedIt()tollthcstrerrgthofthepermissitlnobtainedfrom Grama Panchayat^{fbr c()nslr'uctiorl of compound wall'The plaintiff} resisted the^{dernarlcls o1' det'erlcl:rrlls tn the said circumstances'the} present suit is^{fi led.}

¶44

\41..., SA No. I I49 oi 2(X) l

¶45

-l'he case ol the tlrst det'endant is that, he has not entered into an1, salc transaction rvith the plaintitf and in f'act, on the alleged darc o1contract of sale. the flrst defendant was a student and his father. rvas looking the entire salc transaction and he was only executor of' the document as requested by his lbther. I'here is no fricndship and acquaintance between the plaintilT and first defendant. His father nevcr inforrned about tl-re execution ol'any contract of sale and he claimed that the docu,renr is {abricated. According to him, they obtained Grama Pancharat pe.,rission on 20.04.1991 and thereafter, they raised courpound wall a,d the plaintiff is nothing to do with the suit tr.ansaction arrd pt'ayed to disrniss the suit.

¶46

On the basis of above pleadings, rhe trial Court framed thc following issues:

¶47

l. Whethcr the plaintiff is entitled to get the agreement of sale specifically enforced to get the sale deed registered in his favour in respect of suit land?

¶48

Whethei the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction?

¶49

To what reliefl

¶50

In order ro prove his case, the plaintilf got examined pWs. I to 7 and relied upon Ex.Al to A9. On behalf of defendants, DWs I to 3 were exarnined and relied upon Ex.Bl to 89.

¶51

¶52

\t 1.,. J SIA \o^{1 I 19 oi 2001}

¶53

'fhe prirrutrv CoLrrt alter rll)prcc iatill{1 1l1g gvidgr.rct: on record'^tbund that the plainti^{1'l' is erltitleclfi11} 'pccilic ller'li)rnlance^{since he provedthe} exccution^o1' aqrcctlrellr^{o1' :rLlt Ltndcr I..x A- I and also lirund that the} ptaintilf was itt l.rLrssessitltl^{rllil c'rttseclttelttly,iniunction rvasalso glanted'} l'he said^{judurncrlt atrtl clecre tr\ ilS l'cvcrsedirl the lllst appeal holding} that the plaintil'l'is^{not cntitle'l lbr specific performance and iniunction} was refused^{saying that plaintilf'\'as llot in possesston'} Thc said lindings are impLrgned^{in thc prtscrrt afl)e rl b)/ lllcdthe plaintilT}

¶54

Initialll, this^{( otrrt rLJrrritled the appcal uith relercnceto} substantial^{quesli()nsol Larvll rrrrrccl in the grounds of a'ppeal'This court} having fbund^{thatsuch rt proc('drrre is rrot itl tune with thc provisions of} Code of Civil^{Plocecjure and tlccisiorrsof the Apei Court' as such'} reframed^{the lollorvingsubstanLirrlqucstions olLaw:}

¶55

l) Whcther^{thc finding ol'the First Appetlant Court in reversing} ' judgrnent and dccree rrf tlie trial Court sulTers from any Perversit-r^?

¶56

1. Whethcr^{thc llndine of the First AppellantCourl in holding that} thesuitisbarredbylirlitetionsul.tbrsfromanyperversity?

¶57

g. Learncd^{Counsel lbr botlr pa(ieswere heard on the original} substantiaI^{qtlestio]rs of [- ar'r' rc]L'rredin the Memorandum of Grounds of} Appeal. Alter^{re-liarningthe substantial questions of law' they were}

¶58

¶59

)

¶60

Mt,,,l Sn No. I 149 of 2OO l

¶61

grveu an oppoflunity to advance any further arguments but they reporled no fulther arguntents. [-]ndcr the said circurnstances, the appeal is takcn up fbr disposal.

¶62

Su bsta n tial^q uestions of lau, No.l & 2:

¶63

I 0. f hc agrcement ol' sale under A I shows that the plaintiff was in possession ol suit plot in prrrsuance of payment of entire sale

¶64

consideration. The plaintiff claimed that on the strength of Granrpanchayar perrnission, thc defbndants high handedly started construction olcompound rvall. The defendants failed to prove that such constructi.n was made anterior to the institution of the suit. They have also f'ailed to shorv their ser.tled possession over the suit land. It is for the defendants to provc that how they got in possession of the suit prot from the plaintiff. High handed act of raking possession which is not settlcd possession is not dispossession so as to deny the injunction. Further, the evidence on record shows that the praintiff was in possession on the date of institution of suit. The possession on the date of institution of the suit is relevant and subsequent intermittent act of dispossession cannot be a ground to refuse injunction.

¶65

I l' The plaintiff-s preadings and evidence show that he is an Advocate by profession and he had close acquaintance with the first defendant. Out

¶66

(t Il L,J Sr\ .r"o. I^I '19^{ol 20O1}

¶67

01' said acquaintaurcc. lre cnlcrtci into agreetnetrt of sale^{\viththe llrst} delendant to 1-rulchase suit l)l()t li)]'a^total sale consitleration^{oll{s.1,8t30/-} and entirc sale cot.tsic[:nttioll^tt.,. I]aid oll thc datc^{o1'cxccutionol Ex'A- I} ' 1'he possessiou ol' thr- plttt^{rr irs also dcliveled to hit.tt and he is in} possession of thc suit plot t\cr^{.ir)ce. t hc plainLil'f.to pr'ove Ex.Al,has} examined PW.2 ttic scribe.^{rlrrcl PWs.3 and} '1^{al'c lttestorsto the} document. Apart iiorrr^{that, Ite alsorelied upon Ex.Al and A3, the sale} decds executed hy thc^{ljrsrcle li rlclant irr lhvotrrol' th rd parties.[n the} sale deeds, the llIst delcndant^{rclerrcdthc cxistenccof plaintifl'splot and} his orvnership on the souttrct.n^{srrlc i[r F-x.A".[n Ex.A]on uotthern side.} The plaintiff also relrcd^{Llpontlrc cvidence o1'l)Ws.6 and 7 whohave} supported the collatcrlrl^{cloctttrlcntscxecutedbv the tlrst defendantin} favour of third^parties.

¶68

The defendants'^{evidencc shows that the suit lanrl belongs to them} and in suppoft of^{the sarne. thel have got examinedDWs.1 to 3 and} relied upon Ex.B^{1 to B8 docurnt'nts.The defendants strongly relied upon} Ex.B7 and 88^{whicharc (ilatr l'rtnchal at pernrissionand the approved} plan respectively^{to show that thcr arc ownersand possessors of the suit} plot. During tl.re pcnclency^{ol'rhe suit proceedings,det'endantsfiled the} application to sencl the Irr..,<sup>I t.r the^{lixpert lbr conrparisonol the} signature found thcrc on u,ith the' adrnitted signatures.^-[he aduritted

¶69

¶70

ML,J sA No. I t,l9 0f 2001

¶71

signatures of the first def-endant were takcn in the open Couft or-r I 7.08. I 998. 1'hc cxpert opirlion u as souqhl by cornpar.ing thc signatures taken in opcn Court rvith the Ex.A I rvl'rich was executed in the year 1968.

¶72

Experl gare opinion rhar borh rhc signatures are not tallying. Both thc Courts have not placed rnuch reliance on the Expert opinion on account of non-exaruination of the lrxpert. Apart lrom that, both the courts lound that there is tirne gap in betrvcen standard signatures and the signaturcs on Ex.A I . f inre gap was 30 years. The First Appellant Court discarded the evidence PWs.2 to 4,who were exanrined to support the execution ol Ex.Al. They consistently spoke that the first defendant executed Ex.A I by recei," ing total sale consideration and possession was also dclivered. This evidence was not accepted by the First Appellate Judge on the ground that the signatures in the depositions when compared with the signature on Ex.Al, there was no drastical change. The Court by assuming that on account of the gap. definitety there would be change in the signatures.^'On account of the similarity in the signatures, the evidence was ignored. This finding is not based on any evidence and merely because the signatures are unchanged for 30 years, it cannot be presumed that the document under Ex.A I is forged document. This evidence has to be decided in the light of evidence under Ex.A2 and ,43. which are sale deeds executed by the first defendant in favour of third

¶73

¶74

\t L,.l

¶75

S,1 \rr^I I^{l(r rrl JOO l}

¶76

parties wheretlndcr thc o\vtlcrsllip^{of the plailltil'l or'cr thc suit plot \'as} admifted by Lelen.ing ro onc^{ol thc bounda|ies itr the sr-trt clocttt.nentsand} this possession \vas cor)tirluecl^{cren under'lurthcIsale decdsexccutcdby} the llLst clcfcndant in^lrtr oul^{oi tLlirdpalties.}

¶77

14.^'lhe Firsr \ppcllate^{Jtrd!r.(' :rlso went beyond the er icletrce basedon} his orvn assuntption^{thar lhc} Pllirrtifll'being^{the Advocate is of linancially} well aud he knorvs^{the agteetllctrthas to be executedLrll stamp paper and} the he might har^{e pur-chasecithe lancl under agrecrncrltsalc and it was} lost. he created the^{agrecuteur0l sale Under E,x.Al.I'his part ol [lnding} by the First Appellate^{Judge is bascdon no evidcnce and it is his orvn} assumptiort. l'herelbre,^{such findings suffer lion: Perr'ersitl' 'fhg} evidence on record^{clinchir-rgl1c:tablishes executionol lrx.A I by thc tirst} det'endant. once^{this lact is pr,rved, the recitals thereullderl-raveto be} accepted and it^{binds both paltics. The docurnent underEx A I shows} that the possession^{has been delirt-redand entiresalec:onsiderationwas} also paid.

¶78

l5.LearnedCounselforthcclclendantshascontendedthatlhercisno finding with^{regardto readinessand ivillingness aud the sallewete not} considered by^{both the Courtsbelt'rv.}

¶79

¶80

i\fl_,.J SA No. I I^.19 ol 20O I

¶81

¶82

15.l As secn liorn para No. l0 of' the plaint, thc plaintiff averred his readiness and willingness t. proceed with the terms of contract. In lact, he has also perlbrnred his part ol contract by paying the entire sale consideration but the llrst defendant iailed to discharge his obligation by executing a registered sale decd as and rvhcn dcmanded by the plaintifl. Both the courts could not advert this f'inding lor the reason that it was not case the case of flrst delendant that there rvas binding agreement. It is the case that there was no agrccnrent at all and the agreernent was claimed to be lbrged. Therefore. there rvas no occasion for the courts below to consider readiness and rt,iilingness on the paft ofpraintifr.

¶83

On appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record, it is clinchingly proved that the plaintil)- established readiness and willingness and in fact, he has already performed his parl of obligation by paying the entire sale consideration. He was also ready to get the registered document by paying the additionally demanded amount. I do not find any perversity in the.iudgments of both the court with regard to readiness and willingness aspect.

¶84

t7. The leamed Counsel for the defendants has contended that there was no notice issued by the plaintilf demanding specific performance of the contract in tems of Ex.A- l. 'l-her.efore, according to him, the suit is

¶85

.'..

¶86

¶87

\11' 'l Sr<sup>\1)I l'+()ol 2001

¶88

barrecl by linritation. L earncd^{( ottnsel tbr tlie plaintil'l'has strbmiltedtl-rat} cause ol' actior clearl\ shou^{s Lltat on 06.08.199 I the dctr]tttd \vas nlade} tbl cxecr-rtiort of salc dcecl.^{Lrrrt the dcrtrandot' additional arnountol-} Rs. 10.000/- $,us nrade . lhis^{c,r-cuurstanceitsell'shorvs that thc plaintifr} got notice o1'rclirsal of Pcrli)l^{ttllrtrccb1' the lirst del'erlclarlt. lrl tl-ris rcgrld,} it is re levant to rol-et. r\rticle -iJ^{of the limitatior.t Act. ir hich readsas}

¶89

u nder

¶90

Art No.	Descriptionofsuit	Period^of limitation	^{t^.} jlrmc od frorn^r,r'1 begin	^-rich sto
5 ! 4	For sPectlic perfor-mzurceof tr contrlict.	Three Years	datefixed thepcrfortnan orifnosnch rsfixed,u'hen plair-rtrff notice performzmce refused.	for cc, date the has that is

¶91

Article -14 1)rcsoribcs thrci'^{yeat's period tbr tilrng ol' a strit ol'} specilic pcr.lbrrnancc^{in rcgartlt() iln rgrccmcllt lbr sal('. Ihc pcrtrsal of} thrceycarsprcst:ribeclundcrArticlc54ol'thel-inritatiorrAct conrnrcnced^{li orn 06.0tt'1991'}

¶92

A reading^{of the aboveprovisionmakes it cleat that il'thedateis} fixed lbr performance^{that dateis startingpoint fbr the lirnitation. If no}

¶93

ll MI-,.] SA No. I I^-19 of 200 l

¶94

^ date is flxed,^{thc date on r'vhich} tl're^{plaintifT gets knowledgeol} delcndant's refusal to perlbrnr^the contract

¶95

18.^-fhe unchallenged pleadines shorv that 06.08.199i is taken as the datc o1' retusal. The suit is liled in the r ear l99l^r.r,hich is within limitation.^'Ihe First Appellate Courr while taking up additional point lor consideration on the limitalion aspect, this aspect was not considered. On the contrary, it was taken there was inordinate delay fbr specific perfbrmance and this finding has becn given n,ithout looking into terms of contract. The contractual terms indicate that the obligation on the part o1' the plaintiff has been discharged by paying the cntire sale consideration. The left over obligation is to get the registration of sale deed by making specific demand. No tirne is contemplated lor making the demand. If that is so, lirnitation conlmcnces lrom the date of knowledge of refusal to the ptaintiff. When entire sale consideration is paid, the equity weighs in favour of the plaintilf to execute the contract These aspects were not considered by the First Appellate Court 1n reversing such findings, suffers from perversity.^'lhus, the substantial question of la* No.2 is also answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

¶96

¶97

¶98

liA No II19 ol 2{)(l l

¶99

r\ccolclinrlr', thc lppcal is allowed by setting^{aside thc} -iudgntetrt-

¶100

and dcclec drtcc I I .Oli.l00 l passecl in A.S. No.0i o1'1000^{bl the Senior} C'iril .ludgc. Nlir;alaguda. \^hcreas the .iudgment^{and decrccdated} 0--i.0a.1000 pass.'d in O.S. No.llii of 1991 by^{the.lLrnior Civit Judge,}

¶101

uzLrrnagar-. is conlirnecl.^'I hcr,'^silaIl be no ordcr^{as to c()sts}

¶102

,As a sequel. pending uisccllaneous^{applications.ilany,shallstand}

¶103

closed

¶104

SO/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

¶105

Note. This Judgment is amended as per the Court Order dated 2OlO1l2O23. passed in lA No.7 of 2022 in SA No.l149 of 2001 in paragraph 17, subpara under table, line No.4, amended as '06.08.1991" rnstead of "December-2O10"

¶106

Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

¶107

Note: ln view of dispatch of the Order dated 1710612023 in SA No.1 149/2001 wrong cause trtle, correct cause title amended as per Advocate letter dated 2G/OG|2O23.

¶108

Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I iz rqi-y./qlr,*Jq SECTION OFFICER

¶109

, t\c^{Seq,os. ...\ JuJ.t€ .} rqi-y./qlr,*Jq TO, z. lr..e :sua\i oy^{ai.r'r\ 5</sup> ta, U^{,.vttr F{?q}}}

¶110

One CC to SRI. CHALLA GUNARANJAN Advocate [OPUC]

¶111

Q^{One CC to SRI Y RAIVA RAO Advocate} [OPUC]

5 Two CD Copies \k

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910912022

DATED: 2010112023

DATED: 2610612023

HE STA rA
e
(c
(-
+
7
i r 7 ruE2$B
-t
D '//

¶119

AMENDED JUDGMENT

¶120

SA.No.1149 of 2001

¶121

ALLOWING OF THE SECOND APPEAL

s fi
*

WTHOUT COSTS

132161

IN THE HIGH COURT^FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶126

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH^{DAYOF SEPTEIVBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶127

PRESENT

¶128

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶129

SECOND APPEAL NO: 1149 OF²⁰⁰¹

¶130

Between:

¶131

Chirumamilla Satyanarayana Prasad^{(died), -}

¶132

.....PIaintiff/ RespondenU Appellant

¶133

Appellants 2 to 5 added as LR of the deceased sole appellant

¶134

Chirumamilla Padma Kumari, W/o. Late Chirumamilla Satyanarayana^Prasad FlatNo.102, Plot No, 248, Sai Nilayam, Kamalapuri Colony, Hyderabad.

¶135

Chirumamilla Venkateswara Prasad, S/o. Late Chirumamilla Satyanarayana Prasad Flat No.34,9-1-29114, Rijhumal Mansion, S.P. Road, Secunderabad^- 500 003.

¶136

S. Lalitha Sree, W/o. S.S.N. Prasad, Plot No. 44318128, Road No. 86, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.

¶137

Ch. Anu Radha, Wo. K. Sridhar Reddy Flat No.102, Plot No,248, Sai Nilayam, Kamalapuri Colony, Hyderabad.

¶138

(App. 2 to 5 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole appellant vide c.o. dt.27.12.2012)

¶139

...APPELLANTS

¶140

AND

¶141

1 Naraparaju Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Seetharamachandra Rao Occ: Employee, R/o. Huzurnagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶142

2 Naraparaju Radhakrishna Rao, (died)^per LRs 5 to 7, S/o. Seetharamachandra Rao Occ: Agriculture Ri./o. Huzurnagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶143

3 Naraparaju Ranganadha Rao, (died) per LRs 8 & 9 S/o. Seetharamachandra Rao Occ: Agriculture Fi/o. Huzurnagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶144

4 Naraparaju Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Venkata Rama Rao Occ: Student R/o. Huzurnagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶145

5 Somaraju Lalitha, W/o.Ram Mohan Rao A Kalavala Vijaya Lakshmi, Wo.Sridhar Rao,

¶146

7 Burra Damayanti, Wo.Anjeneya Shastry All are Ryo.Huzurnagar village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. (Respondents Nos.5 to 7 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No.2 vide court order dated 10/08/2022 in lA No.312022)

¶147

K.Sweta Bhavani, Wo.K.Mahesh

¶148

I A.Seeta Bharani, Wio.A.Phanishwar (AIl are Rl/o.Huzurnagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District)

¶149

(Respondent Nos.g and.9 are brought on record as per LRs of the fll:f;;:rl,*".ponde^{nt N,,. 3. ;id;t;;'i.J;# aatea iiroi.rioizj,=ra}

¶150

,..DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶151

Appellants under Section 10C oJ C p C against the Judgment and decree dated 21-08-2021 made rn AS No 3 ot 2000 ";l;; ;ii;'of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryargucra preferretl ag:r nr-;t the ou.r"" in 6 6 No.1g3 of 1991 dated 05_052000 on the fite of the courr orir,,, .r",,,orLiu]il"rjgi ir.r.nugr,

¶152

ORDER: This Appeal comrng _j, ror hearing and upon perusing the ground of appear' the Judqment and Decrer:,,t *,e ioweT corrt rno the materiar papers in the case and upon hearins rhe argume.ls of sRr GHALLA cur.rnnnr.rJnrv, ;;;;"i; i".. the Appeilants and SRt y nnH.ln qp O roiihei".iiro"ntr.

¶153

This Court doth Order and decree a:. [ollows .

¶154

That the S.A be and hereby is ?,:*:-d by setting aside the judgment and decree flrili$rtl,:'"ol passed jn A s No 03 ;i bv the' s;;io; cr;; i;;; '60d

¶155

2' That the judgment and decree Ll.rir:d 05-05-2000 passed in o.S.No.183 0f 1g91 by the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurn,:3ar fr" ""Jh"r"[V is confirmed; and

¶156

That there shall be no order as to (;rsts in this appeal.

¶157

SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAO Note: ln view ol disoatcq of REGlsrRAR the crrder dated 17to6t2ora ,n'oJlt No.1149/2001 wrong cause ti e, corrc'jl cause li e amended as per Advocate teller daleJ 26lo6i 2023.

¶158

//TRUE COPY//

¶159

¶160

The Senior Civil Judge, tr/iryatguda

¶161

z. lhe Junior Civil Judqe, Huz.rrn-agar

¶162

Two CD Copies

¶163

-v

¶164

sd/-K.SRtNtvASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ./ -l/' SECTIONbFFICER

¶165

HIGH COURT

¶166

DATED:1910912022 DATED: 2610612023

¶167

AMENDED DECREE SA.No.1149 of 2001

¶168

ALLOWING OF THE SECOND APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶169

.5rd 41,^rt

Chirumamilla Satyanarayana Prasad (died) v. Naraparaju Venkateswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chirumamilla Satyanarayana Prasad (died) v. Naraparaju Venkateswara Rao

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

Khaja Naseeruddin, Vs Syed Abdul Rab , Arshad Mehta

Addl. Asst. Engineer Vs Peddi Mallakka

Allam Mukundam Vs Vinod Chary (Died) per LRs and 3 others

Iqbal Hussain Vs B.Appa Rao

Mohd Faheemuddin Hyderabad Vs Mahavir Pershad and 5

Dm.,United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Nizam Vs R.Balaiah , Devanna and 3 Ors.