REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Bandi Samuel And Another Appellant

V/S

Medida Nageswara Rao Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SAVITRAMMA V. B.CHANGA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
ECE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. S.P. REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
GURUNATH MANOHAR PAVASKAR AND OTHERS VS. NAGESH SIDDAPPA NAVALGUND AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
LEKH RAJ VS. MUNI LAL [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA WAQF BOARD VS. SHANTI SARUP [REFERRED TO]
CHALAPATI VEERANNA VS. CHALAPATI VENKATACHALAM [REFERRED TO]
J SATYASRI RAMBABU VS. A ANASUYA [REFERRED TO]
MALLIAKARJUNASRINIVASA GUPTA VS. K SHESHIREKHA [REFERRED TO]
DAMMALAPATI SATYANARAYANA VS. DATLA VENKATA RAMABHADRA RAJU ALIAS D V R RAJU [REFERRED TO]
G NAGABHUSHANAM VS. T ESWARAMMA [REFERRED TO]
VARALA RAMACHANDRA REDDY MALLA REDDY POCHAMPALLY MANDAL VS. MEKALA YADI REDDY MALLA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
YENGONDA BAL REDDY VS. MANEMMA [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK ZAREENA KASAM VS. PATAN SADAB KHAN [REFERRED TO]
THALLA SULOCHANA VS. THALLA ISAAC [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRANATH VS. PURNANANDA [REFERRED TO]
PONNUSAMY VS. SALEM VAIYAPPAMALAI JANGAMAR SANGAM [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY VS. SAHEBRAO S O KACHRU KHANDARE [REFERRED TO]
DONADULU UMA DEVI VS. GIRIKA KATAMAIAH ALIAS BASAIAH [REFERRED TO]
BADANA MUTYALU VS. PALLI APPALARAJU [REFERRED TO]
JAMMI VENKATA KRISHNA RAO AND ORS. VS. JAMMI VENKATA HANUMA RAVINDRANATH [REFERRED TO]
JAJULA KOTESHWAR RAO VS. RAVULAPALLI MASTHAN RAO [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st plaintiff, since 2nd plaintiff died of the suit in O.S.No.75 of 2009 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, is the revision petitioner and revision respondent is the sole defendant.

(2.) The suit filed was for permanent injunction in relation to plaint plan ABCD lane by removing the constructions said to have been made by the defendant. The claim of the plaintiff is that he purchased the property from the mother of the defendant by name Kantamma. The record shows the defendant earlier filed O.S.No.219 of 1993 for permanent injunction against his brother and mother and the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat. Plaintiff alleges that latter the suit lane was occupied by constructing compound wall obstructing the easementary right of ingress and egress, thereby sought for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for measurement and demarcation of the lane by measuring the property of the plaintiff and the defendant respectively.

(3.) The defendant opposed the petition saying the very suit seeking permanent injunction without declaratory relief for alleged removal of construction from plaint plan ABCD lane wont lie and Exs.A1 and A2 no way relate to plaintiffs right over suit property and there are no documents or any local body approved plans filed to support the claim and there are no grounds to appoint Advocate Commissioner therefrom.

Click here to view full judgment.

BANDI SAMUEL & ANOTHER Vs. MEDIDA NAGESWARA RAO

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address