REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

NANJA REDDY Appellant

V/S

RAMAPPA NAIDU Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

REWAUN PERSAD V. RADHA BEEBY [REFERRED TO]
NARAGUNTY V. VENGAMA [REFERRED TO]
MORO VISHVANATH V. GANESH [REFERRED TO]
NAGESHAR BAKSH SINGH V. GANESHA [REFERRED TO]
NEELKISTO DEB V. BEERCHUNDER [REFERRED TO]
CHEETHA (MST) V. MIHEEN LALL [REFERRED TO]
YELLAPPA VS. TIPPANNA [REFERRED TO]
FATHER AND SONS. MALAK CHAND V. HIRA LAL [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWANI (MST) V. MOHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUBARDAYAL V. RAMDULARE [REFERRED TO]
PANDIT MOHAN LAL V. PANDIT RAM DAYAL [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL AZIZ CHAUDHURY AND OTHERS V. BARINDRA KUMAR DAS AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
RANGANAYAKI AMMAL AND OTHERS V. S.R.SRINIVASAN AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVAS KRISHNARAO KANGO VS. NARAYAN DEVJI KANGO [REFERRED TO]
RUKHMABAI VS. LALA LAXMINARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
INDRANARAYAN VS. ROOP NARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
SHANKARRAO DEJISAHEB SHINDE VS. VITHALRAO GANPATRAO SHINDE [REFERRED TO]
MAKHAN SINGH VS. KULWANT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MUNESH KUMAR VS. LALLI PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM VS. BHAGWAT SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
MATHURI BEWA VS. PRAFULLA ROUTRAY [REFERRED TO]
SATYA KINKAR PALIT VS. BRAHMDEO SINHA AND CO [REFERRED TO]
CHITO MAHTO VS. LILA MAHTO [REFERRED TO]
JUGAL KISHORE SINGH VS. GOBIND SINGH [REFERRED TO]
YELLAPPA RAMAPPA NAIK VS. TIPPANNA BIN LAXMANNA NAIK [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants have filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.1996 in A.S.No.75 of 1996 on the file of the Learned Sub Judge, Hosur.

(2.) The First Appellate Court, viz., the Learned Sub Judge, Hosur, while passing Judgment in A.S.No.75 of 1996, has, among other things, observed that 'it is not to be known that the Plaintiffs are in enjoyment of the suit properties as one property and on the basis of Commissioner's Report and Plan, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction and further that the Plaintiffs have not proved that they are in separate enjoyment of the suit properties.'

(3.) Also, the First Appellate Court has opined that 'as far as the present case is concerned, the partition mentioned by Defendants 1 to 5 have been held to be true and therefore, the other Defendants have got a right to sell it to the 1st Defendant which cannot be injuncted by the Plaintiffs and all the more since Venkata Reddy possessed only 8 acres of punja land and each to their share has got 4 acres in partition, as seen from the oral evidence and further that it is not established that Venkata Reddy has separate income etc., and as such, it cannot be construed that from the income of 4 acres of ancestral property, the properties have been purchased and in the instant case on hand, the averment that 40 years ago a partition has taken place between the 1st Plaintiff's father and the 1st Defendant has not been proved and that the Plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and resultantly, allowed the Appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in the main suit and dismissed the suit, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.'

Click here to view full judgment.

NANJA REDDY Vs. RAMAPPA NAIDU

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address