REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

M.SESHAGIRI RAO Appellant

V/S

M.RUKKAMMA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MALLAPPA V. KOGARA VENKATAPPA [REFERRED TO]
KADIYALA VENKATASUBBAIAH V. SARUPURI NARAYANAMMA [REFERRED TO]
SENGAMALAM V. LOGAMBAL [REFERRED TO]
P.VENKATACHALAM CHETTY V. P.S.GONVINDASWAMY NAICKER [REFERRED TO]
K.VEERABHADRAYYA V. JAJALA SEETHAMMA [REFERRED TO]
VEMI REDDY KOTA REDDYV. VEMI REDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY [REFERRED TO]
PARVATHY NADACHY UMAYAPARVATHI NADACHY V. RAMALEKSHMY SEETHALAKSHMY AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
NARSIMHAN V. PERUMAL (DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES [REFERRED TO]
RATAN LAL SHARMA RATAN LAL SHARMA VS. PURSHOTTAM HARIT:PURSHOTTAM HARIT [REFERRED TO]
BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
K VENKATADRI SARMA VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS A P HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
CHINTALAPUDI ANNAPURNAMMA VS. ANDUKURI PUNNAYYA SASTRY [REFERRED TO]
M MANIK REDDY VS. M ANASUYA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
ISRA FATIMA VS. BISMILLAH BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
A KRISHNA VS. A ARJUN RAO [REFERRED TO]
VAJRALA RAMESH VS. VAJRALA NARAYANA SETTY [REFERRED TO]
NETRAMBAKA KRISHNAIAH VS. NELLORE AUDINARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
THONDURI CHENGA REDDY VS. CHILLAKURU CHANDRA SEKHARA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
MEDA ANJAMMA VS. VIKRAM CHINA VEERAIAH [REFERRED TO]
KUNCHIYAN JANAKY VS. MATHEVI NACHI [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVASA PADAYACHI VS. PARVATHIAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
RAMASWAMI NAIDU VS. GOPALAKRISHNA NAIDU [REFERRED TO]
PONNUCHAMI SERVAI VS. BALASUBRAMANIAN [REFERRED TO]
MURARI LAL KUTI VS. NARAYAN LAL AHIR [REFERRED TO]
RAMAUTAR SINGH VS. SM RAMSUNDARI KUR [REFERRED TO]
KHUSHALCHAND BHAGCHAND V. TRIMBAK RAMCHANDRA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M. Rama Rao, the learned counsel representing the petitioner and Sri T.P. Acharya, the learned counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) This court ordered notice before admission on 21 -4-2005 and inasmuch as the respondents were served and the learned counsel Sri T.P. Acharya entered appearance. The C.R.P. is being disposed of finally.

(3.) Sri Rama Rao, the learned counsel representing the petitioner had taken this court through the contents of the document in question and had pointed out that it was specified in the document both in the beginning and also in the concluding portion as Will and in view of the same, the intention of the testator is clear, even otherwise, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner as plaintiff instituted the suit for cancellation of the preliminary decree made in O.S. No.51 of 1964 dated 8-7-1965 and final decree made on 31-1-1972. The learned counsel also would submit that the petitioner filed this document- the Will dated 16-12-1962 said to have been executed by M.V. Kishan Rao allotting the properties and when the petitioner-plaintiff wanted to mark this document as Ex.A-6, an objection was taken by the respondents- defendants on the ground that the document in question is a settlement deed and hence both for want of registration and also the liability to pay stamp duty and penalty, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. The learned counsel would maintain that in the peculiar facts and circumstances especially in the light of the nature of the recitals, it would be appropriate to decide this question after marking the document and not at this stage without marking the document on the ground that the other side had taken objection. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of this court in Vajrala Ramesh v. Vajrala Narayan Seffy and also the decision of full bench of this court in K. Venkatadri Sarma v. Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., Hyderabad.

Click here to view full judgment.

M SESAGIRI RAO Vs. M RUKKAMMA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address