Disposed

Kum. Tekulapally Greeshma v. T. Raghupathi Reddy

Telangana HC20 Oct 2023AS/579/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal suit filed for partition and separate possession. During pendency, parties filed a compromise memo; the Court recorded the terms, declared a decree reflecting the settlement agreement, and allowed withdrawal of all future claims against the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The appeal suit was disposed of in terms of a recorded compromise decree allotting specific land shares to appellants and barring future maintenance claims.

Kum. Tekulapally Greeshma Vs T. Raghupathi Reddy — Partition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

r.A. NO.2 0F 2019

¶6

IN/AND

¶7

APPEAL SUIT NO: 579 OF 2010

¶8

Appeal Under Section 96 of C.p.C. against the Decree and Judgment dated 19-04-2010 in O.S.No. 18 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Vlll Additional District Judge, Nizamabad

¶9

Between:

¶10

Kum. Tekulapally Greeshma, D/o T. Raghupathi Reddy Hindu, aged about 26 years Occ: Student,

¶11

Kum. Tekulapally Ramya Krishna, D/o T. Raghupathi Reddy Hindu, aged about 23 years, Occ: Student,

¶12

¶13

1. Smt. ..Tekulapaly Manoja Wo T. Raghupathi Reddy, (Natural Mother of Appellants No., 1 and 2

¶14

(App_e-llant Nos.1 & 2 ar9 declared as majors as per Court order dated 3- 1-2020, vide l.A.No. 1 of 20191

¶15

fjl^are..!.o^{Kgtl_u1-U]of Korgi(M)Dist. Nizamabad,at present R/o ptot No.} !-eS,. .H.tto.^{5-283,GokulPlots,Behind VasanthNdgar, Serlingampally} Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

...APPELLANTS/ Plaintiffs

¶17

AND

¶18

T.^Raghupathi-Fg99V,.9lo Late T. Baga Reddy Hindu, Occ: Agricutture, R/o Kailur (V) of Korgir (M) Dist. Nizamabad

¶19

..RESPONDENT/ Defendant

¶20

IA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶21

Between:

¶22

1 Kum. Tekulap-ally Gre^eshm-a, D/o_T Eaghupathi Reddy Hindu, aged about 26 ygqrs ..8/o l9t.l1-U of Korgi(M) Dist. Nizamabad, at present-R:/o ptot No. !p3,^{H.No 5-2B3,GokulPtots, Behind Vasanth} Nalar, SeriIngampalty Municipallity, Ranga Reddy Diskict

¶23

2 Kum. Tekulapally Ramya Krishna, D/o T. Raghupathi Reddy Hindu. aoed about 23_years, occ: studenr, R/o. Katrur rvl ot-roigiiiMjij[i,ilir]rioroy? -

¶24

present R/o ptot No. 283. HNo. 5_2_83,G-o(rt pfot"i, H"6inAV;;;;ih N;;";, Serilingampaily Municipaility, Ranga Reddy D]itiitl'-'

¶25

Tekulapally Manoja Wo. T.. Raghupathi Reddy, aged 48 years R/o. Kallur YljJIrs.q .,.^{Kotgir Mandat, rrrizam"aodo} oi"iiti ,'br.l6itry-re,sioiiri'jiprdi r.i". 283, H.No. 5-283 Gokut_ptors, behind--VJiinirr";g"r, sdriri"ga;,pally Municipality, Ranga Reddy DistriCt.^' .. Appeilants

¶26

AND

¶27

T. .Raghupathi Reddy S/o. Late T. Baga Reddy, aged about 53 years, R/o. Kailur Viilage, Kotgir irrrtandat, Nizamabat- Disil;(.' .. FrdJrili,oi,i,t

¶28

Petition under order 23 Rure 3 0f cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petiiio;, the High C;; ;il ;. pleased to record the terms of 'compromise 'as mentioneo -auove inJ-i,".. judgment and decree accordingly in the interest of justice

¶29

t.A. NO: 1oF 2010 ASMP. NO: 1662 0F 2010

¶30

Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to restrain the Respondent or any other person/s craiming through him or under hrm from arienating the suit schedure properties comprising of Plaint A schedure property is house property bearing Municipar No. 1-4-509 situated at Ambedkar chowrastha, Bodhan praint B-Schedure Property agriculturar rand Admeasuring Ac 09-01 gts in sy.No. 27 and 2g Ac 1602 gts in Sy.No. 31, Ac 13-01 gts in Sy.No. 32, tota,y admeasuring Ac 38_04 gts situated at Bordipur shivar of Kailur (v) Kotgrr (M) praint c-schedure property agricultural land admeasuring Ac 03_05 gts in Sy.No. 133/A, Ac 04_00 gts in sy'No' 130/A, Ac 03-01 gts in sy.No. 134/E totaily admeasuring Ac 10-06 gts situated at Kalrur (v) of Kotgir (M) Dist. Nizamabad either by way of sare or othenrvise in any manner what-so-ever pending disposar of the above Appear suit in the interest of the Justice.

¶31

Counsel for the Appeilant in both :SRl. B. VENKAT RAMA RAO

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent in both : SRI K. RAGHUVEER REDDY

¶33

The Court delivered the following Common Judgment :

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶35

I.A.No.2 OF 2019

¶36

IN/AND

¶37

APPEAL SU NO.579 oF 2010

¶38

COMM ON JUDG MENT:

¶39

Appellants/Plaintiffs fited O.S.No.18 of 2006 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad for partition and Separate Possession and the same was dismissed, and against which the present Appeal Suit is filed before this Court.

¶40

During the pendency of the Appeal Suit, I.A.No.2 of 2019 is filed on L8.12.2019 by the appellants to record the compromise with the respondent stating that at the intervention of elders and well wishers, the parties have settled their disputes in terms of the compromise.

¶41

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, both the counsel stated that the matter has been setued out of the Court and further submitted that as per the compromise, the appellants shali withdraw all the claims against the respondent and undertake not to make any future claims for maintenance from the respondent.

¶42

A memo was filed by the appellants stating that as the appellant No.1 is residing in USA, she executed General power of

¶43

Attorney, who is the mother of appellant No.1, as she could not

¶44

appear before this Court

¶45

In the result, I.A.No.2 of 2019 is ordered. Consequenfly, the Appeal Suit is disposed of in terms of compromise. No order as to costs.

¶46

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶47

SD/- B.S. CHIRANJEEVT / JOINT R GISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

kul

SECTION FFICER

2.1. one The Vlll cc Additional to sRt. a. District veruxnrri[MA Judge, Niz_amabad . RAo, dv;iri"'iopucf( with records ) 3. One CC to SRt. K. RAGHUVEER neOOV, narocat-ei6pUCt 4. Two \yCD Copies

¶53

HIGH COURT

¶54

DATED:2011012023

¶55

DECREE FOR COMPROMISE

¶56

JUDGMENT

¶57

1 rlE SfA.I
o 2 5 JAN zul fz
*
i'; r $c_

¶58

AS.No.579 of 2010

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT

¶60

IN TERMS OF COMPROMISE

WITHOUT COSTS

i l li

iI t -1 I I I t lti

I 1

t it

I I i I iit I I i

I i t I l I 1 I ,I

MEMORANDUM OF^{REGULAR APPEAL} (Under the Sec.96 OF C.EC)

¶73

IN THE COURT OF^{THE VIII ADDIYONALDISTRICTJUDGE,} NIZAMABAD.

¶74

¶75

o.s.No.18 oF 2oo6 -

¶76

IN TTIE HIGH COURT^OF JUDICATURE^{OF ANDHRAPRADESH} AT: HYDERABAD

¶77

e.s.uo.⁵¹⁹ or^zoro

¶78

Betvveen:

¶79

1 - '/	Kum. TekulapallyGreeg$ma,^{D/o.T.Raghupathi Reddy,} ^{Flindu,Agedaboutdffars,Occ.Student,Minor,} underthe^{quardian ship ofhernahrral mother} St. f"trtupuUy^{Ittanoja(theAppellant No.3 herein),}D-I;[^-, t W/o.T.Raghupathi^{Reddy,39years,Household,}o^.i**.-x ^-^ R/o.Kaltur($^{o(Korgir(M),DistNizamabad} ..{-i- I^{l,,1,^,^} atpresentresiding^{atPlotNo283,H.No.5-283,} -,1],r-' ' GokulPlots,^{behindVasanthNagarl} Sherilingampally^{MuniciPality,RangaReddyDistrict} ZL^A,'.la)-) q".-C"s}-o-l'- .l,nrL-L++r".- )=' A'8-
2.	Kum.Tekulapallv^RamvqlGishra,^{D/o.T.Raghupathi Rcddy,} Hindu,Agedablut@ffrs,^{Occ.Shrdent,Minor,} underthe^{quardian shipof hernahrral mother} Smt.Tekulapally^{Manoja(theAppeliantNo.3 herein),} W/o.T.Raghupathi^{Reddy,39years,I{ousel.rold,} R/o. Kallui^{(V) ofKorgir(M), Dist.Nizamabad} atpresentresiding^{atPlot No.283,H.No5-283,} GokulPlots,behind^{VasanthNagar,} Sherilingampally^{Municipality,RangaReddyDistrict'}
	Smt.Tekulapally^{Manoja (natural mother of} Appellants No.1^{and2 and theAppellants} No.1and2being^{minorsrepresente(t bythis} AppellantNo.3),W/o.^{T.RaghupathiReddy,39years,} Household,R/o.^{Kallur(V)ofKorgir(M),} Dist. Nizamabad^{atpresentresidingat PlotNo283,} H. No.5- 283,^{GokulPlots, behindVrsanthNagar,} Sherilingampally,^{Municipality,ItangaReddyDistrict'} APPellants/^Plair.tiffs AND
,^T.Ra -Hi-.'d R/o.	Respondent/Defendant ^{ghupathiReddy,S/o.LateT.BagaRetldy,} u, Ageci about44 years,Occ.Agril., I(allur()of^{Korgir(M),Dist. Nizatrtabad}

¶80

T lt I I t I .li

¶81

IN THE HIGH COUR]'FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶82

ASNo 579 of 2010

¶83

,B-cIrce!

¶84

1 l.l.:l:u.,:o:,ty^{GreeshmaD/o r Raghuparhi} llll^.11,.i,!"0^{,,0:ur 26 years R7o x.rilur"viJtise,} N o r t rr .\I ancl a l, N iza mabad D istrict, p resen tl"y residingat Plot No. 283, H No 5_283, Gokul lj:.:l^{u:lllnVasanthnasar,serilingampaUy} rv unrcrpali[y, unrcrpali[y, iianga Reddy Districi

¶85

rv unrcrpali[y, unrcrpali[y, iianga Reddy Districi

¶86

2 I(unr Tekulapally Ramya I(rishna 3/: ] T:rl:1,,^,hi Recrcry, dsed abour 23 years K/ o l.\dltur Village, Kotgir Mandal. Nizar:iabad rrrsU rct. p-rescnLIv residing at plot I.,lo. 2gl, t^.r1rl 9:*^u.i pr:Ls, Behind \iasantluragar

¶87

I ): >elr rr rgampally M u nicipaJ i ty, Rar rga Reclrly.bist.

¶88

3 l-",",111:] lllno^{ia .V / o I Ral ih u, .ri,r i,iuciJ1} aEeo 4d ) edri Ii/r, KaJlur Vrllagt,, Ki:Lgir Yl:L u'^.:1l,: ba cl Disrri, prcscn i [y res iding l, ] ]o,.,)o^{26.trI No. 5 283, Cokull,loLs,} :,".']l'.tq^{u?:".,1Nagar, serir ingarroaIry} ,vr u n rcr pa tr ty, Ilanga Recldl,Di;hir: Appellants

¶89

Ancl

¶90

T.Raghuparhi Redcly S/o Lare T.Baga Reddy, aged about 53 years R/o Kallur Village, Kotgir N4a )1dal, Nizamabad District

¶91

Respondent

¶92

U OI o o FIL D ERO 23 E o C c

¶93

The Appellants have filed the above appeal questionhg the Judgrnent and Decree dated 19 4 2010 in O S No. 18 of 2006 passed by the Courr.of l{on,ble VIll Addirional Dish_jcr Judge, Nizarnabad Dishict. The Appellanl Nos. 1 & 2 are the claughters of Respondent herein while

I l l i ,

; l i l

I I ii il il il I I I I I t I I

¶98

¶99

r. .{

¶100

Appcllanr No.3 is his wife. Said s_.1;t was fiied for partiticn of suit scheclule propertics and for allottrng 1/3,cr share each to the Appellants herein. Saicl suit was dismissed by Juclgrnent clated 19 4 2010 against which the above Appeal is filed ar-rd the same is pending acljudication.

¶101

While so, at the instance of eiders and well wishers, in order to puL an end to the litigation, the parties herein have agreecl to settle the dispute as per the terms and conclitions mentionecl below

¶102

Out of ihe suit schedule property, it has been agreecl to glve the following extents of lanc{s in lavour of appellants. ellant No,1

¶103

Ac.3.00 of land in Sy No. 21../ A/.i/lof Bardipur Shivar of Kallur Viliage, Kotgir Mandal, Nizautabad Diskict, bounded on : Nolth : I-and of Sr i Kishan ar-rii Sri Shivaram ancl others South : Lancl of L.avanya

¶104

West : Land oI T Ramyakrishna

¶105

East : Land of Manoja and Sha:;hirekha

¶106

A ellant No.2

¶107

Ac 3 00 of land in sy No. 3^l / A/L/1of Bardipur shivar of Ka,ur Village, Kotgir Mandal, Nizartabad District, bounded on :

¶108

North : Land of Sri Kishan, Shivaram and others

¶109

Soutl-r : Lanc-t of Lavanya

¶110

Wcst : Cheruvr-r

¶111

[ast . Latrd of Gr.ecs]rma

¶112

W' L'1-'%-dd{"Y,^^{11fn'rA{^LI}

¶113

r'i I

¶114

Appellant No.3

¶115

Ac 1'34 guntas in sy No. i1i A/7/1cf Bardipur shivar of Kar,ur Village, Kotgir Mandal, Nizamabad District, bounded on :

¶116

North : Lancl of Srinivasa Rao

¶117

South : Land of Shashirokha

¶118

East : Lald of pool Singh

¶119

West : Land of Greeshma

¶120

In all, an extenr of Ac.7.34 gts in Sy No. 31/ A/1/L of Bardipur Shivar of Kallur Village, Kotgir Mandal, Nizamabacl Diskict, along with existing Borewell, MoLor l,viLh pur:rp and Illectrical Servicc Connection No. 1024 shall be allotteci to the appellants towards their share and the Apperants sharr.ot have any craim over the other suit schedule properties and tl.re Respor1dent is entitled to enjoy the same in his own r.ighl

¶121

There are 2 LIC policies standing in the name of 3,d Appellant viz Policy No. 64414976 clt 28 5 20rll and pohcy No. 64at_4\aa7 dajed 28 6 2000 which had maturecl durhg the year 2006 and ithe approximate maturity value of thr: said policies is around Rs 47000/and if there is any shor.t fall of a;nount the same will be paid by the RespondenL. The 3,a Appellant slrall utilize the saiil an.rount for geiting the regisLlation done in r.especi of Ac.7.34 gts in Sy irl6. 31/ A/1/l which is allotteci ur favour of ihe Appellants by virtue of this cur.npromise.

¶122

(W' .--y-

¶123

L-( P^'1y*r::!tY |^'frna/xzlo <sup>4' -=t-

)

{

The parttcs have affixed their signatures to this Compromise Memo with their free will and consent, in sound state of inind, without there being any coercion and pressure from any quarter.

¶128

In view of the above terms and conditions, the Appellants and Respondent herein pray this Hon'bre court to record the terms of compromise as mentioned above and pass Judgment and Decree accordrngly in the interests of justice and pass such other or furrher orclers as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶129

I{yderabad

¶130

o,,1l1z[1f CO L FOR APPELLANTS

(1) LLANT NO, 1

--T (2) ^ ANT NO, 2

(' mt +fl<

(3) APPELLANT NO. 3

COUNSELFOR RESPONDENT

¶136

REIPONDENT

¶137

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶138

FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶139

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶140

r.A. NO. 2 0F 2019

¶141

IN/AND

¶142

FIRST APPEAL NO: 579 0F 2010

¶143

Between:

¶144

Kum. Tekulapally Greeshma, D/o T. Raghupathi Reddy Hindu, aged about 26 years R/o. Kallur (V) of Korgi(M) Dist. Nizamabad, at present R/o plot No. 283, H.No. 5-283,Gokul Plots, Behind Vasanth Nagar, Serilingampally Municipallity, Ranga Reddy Diskict

¶145

Kum. Tekulapally Ramya Krishna, D/o T. Raghupathi Reddy Hindu, aged about 23 years, Occ: Student, R/o. Kallur (V) of Korgi(M) Dist. Nizamabad, at present R/o Plot No. 283, H.No.5-283,Gokul plots, Behind Vasanth Nagar, Serilingampally Municipallity, Ranga Reddy District

¶146

Tekulapally Manoja Wo. T. Raghupathi Reddy, aged 48 years R/o. Kallur Vuillage , Kotgir Mandal, Nizamabad District , presenily residlng at plot No. 283, H.No. 5-283 Gokul Plots, behind Vasanthnagar, Serilingampally Munlcipdlity, Ranga Reddy District. .. Appellants

¶147

And

¶148

T. Raghupathi Reddy S/o. Late T. Baga Reddy, aged about 53 years, R/o. Kallur village, Kotgir Mandal, Nizamabad District. ... Respondent

¶149

Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the Decree and Judgment dated 19-04-2010 in O.S.No. 18 of 2006 on the fite of the Court of the Vlll Additional District Judge, Nizamabad

¶150

¶151

|.A.NO.2 OF 2019 : Petition Under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC

¶152

praying that the High Court may be pleased to pass a decree in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise filed therewith as between the petitioners/appellants and respondents/respondents in the said l.A. No. 2 of 2019 on the file of the High Court.

¶153

The appeal and LA No. 2 of 2019 comlng this day for orders as to settlement in the presence of Sri B. Venkata Rama Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, Advocate for the respondent, Appellant and respondent through their respective advocates having filed in l.A.No. 2 of 2019 requesting the court to pass a decree in terms the memorandum of compromise entered into between them and upon perusing the grounds appeal, judgment and decree of the Lower court and the memo of compromise purpo(ing to have been signed by the parties and their Advocates and filed with said l.A.No. 2 of 2019 and it appearing from the said memorandum of compromise that the parties herein have entered into compromise and seftled the matter out of court in terms memorandum of compromise filed herein.

¶154

This Court Doth Record the terms of the said memorandum of compromise in original whereof is filed in the said l.A.No.2 of 2019 and a copy whereof is annexed hereto and DOTH in terms of the said memorandum of compiomise declare ORDER and DECREE in LA. No. 2 ot 2O19 as follows:

¶155

1 . That the Appeal be and hereby is disposed of in terms of compromise;

¶156

That the in order to put an end to the litigation, the parties herein have agreed to seftle the dispute as perthe terms and conditions mentioned below.

¶157

a) Out of the suit schedule property, it has been agreed to give the following extents of lndas in favour of appellants. Aooellant No.1

¶158

Ac.3.00 of land in Sy.No.3llA/1/i of Bardipur Shivar of Kailur Village, Kotgir Mandal, Nizamabad District, bounded on:

¶159

North: Land of Sri Kishan and Sri Shivaram and others

¶160

South: Land of Lavanya

¶161

West: Land of T Ramyakrishna

¶162

East: Land of Manoja and Shashirekha

¶163

Aooellant No.2

¶164

Ac.3.00 of land in Sy No.31/A/1/.1 of Bardipur Shivar of kallur Village, Kotgir Mandal, Nizamabad District, bounded on: North: Land of Sri kishan, Shivaram and others

¶165

South: land of Lavanya

¶166

West: Cheruvu East: Land of Greesham

¶167

Aooellan t No.3

¶168

4c.1.34 guntas in Sy No.31/A/1/1 of Bardipur Shivar of Kallur Village, Kotgir Mandal, Nizamabad District, bounded on:

¶169

North: Land of Srinivasa Rao

¶170

South: Land of Shashirekha

¶171

East: Land of Pool Singh

¶172

West: Land of Greeshma

¶173

ln all, an extent of Ac.73.34 gts in Sy No.31/A/1/1 of Bardipur Shivar of Kallur Village, Kotgir Mandal, Nizamabad Diskict, along with existing Borewell, Motor with Pump and Electrical Service Connection No.1024 shall be allotted to the appellants towards their share and the Appellants shall not have any claim over the other suit schedule properties and the Respondent is entitled to enjoy the same in his own right.

¶174

b) That the Two LIC Policies standing in the name of 3'd Appellant viz policy No.64414976 dt 28.05.2001 and^poticy No.644142447 dated 28.6.2000 had matured during the year 2006 and the approximate maturity value of the said policies is around Rs 47000/- and if there is any short fall of amount the same will be paid by the Respondent and the 3rd Appellant shall utilize the said amount for getting the registration done in respect of 4c.7.34 gts in Sy No.31lN111 which is allotted in favour of the Appellants by virtue of this compromise.

¶175

c) There is a land admeasuring Ac.'l.30 gts in Sy No.29lAN1l2 of Bardipur Shivar, Kallur Village, Kotgir Mandal, Nizamabad District which is in the name of father of 3'd Appellant. Said property which was given to 3'd Appellant shall be registered in the name of Respondent herein for which necessary registration charges and other incidental expenses shall be borne by Respondent.

¶176

d) ln view of the above compromise, the Appellants shall withdraw all the claims against Respondent and undertake not make any future claims for maintenance, etc. from the Respondent here, and alsp other two civil mafters viz CMA No.376 of 2005 and AS No.59 of 2014 pending before this Hon'ble Court shall be withdrawn by the Appellants so as to put an end to the litigation.

¶177

e) The Appellants undertake not to make any future claims or initiate any further litigations against the Respondent and the Appellants also undertake not to make any other claims either with regard to maintenance or in respect of the properties which fell to the share of Respondent now or any other properties which the Respondent may acquire in future.

¶178

f) The parties undertake not of interfere with each other's properties.

¶179

g) ln case there is failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Compromise, the parties shall be entitled to seek for execution of Terms and Conditions of compromise; and

¶180

B. that the be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶181

SD/- B.S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT GISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

sEcTto OFFICER

The VIll Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (with records)

¶186

Two CD Copies

¶187

¶188

\AP--

HIGH COURT

DATED: 20-10-2023

COMPROMlSE DECREE

t.A. NO. 20F 2019 IN/AND

¶194

APPEAL SUIT NO. 579 OF 2O1O

¶195

DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT

¶196

IN TERMS OF COMPROMISE

¶197

WITHOUT COSTS

¶198

"\ Vf C\

Kum. Tekulapally Greeshma v. T. Raghupathi Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum. Tekulapally Greeshma v. T. Raghupathi Reddy

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

Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs Irukulla Sadanandam

Syed Muzaffaruddin Vs R.Krishna (Died) per LRs RR-3 to 5

Venumula Krishna Reddy Vs Kallem Venkat Reddy

Chilkamarri Ramulu Vs Smt. Rahimunissa Begum

Malga Bala Krishna Vs Regatti Linga Reddy

The Managing Director, Vs M/s M.V.F. Sales and Promotors