advocatemmmohan
narasimha reddy
This general understanding of Section 53-A of the Act is not absolute. In a given case, the suit for perpetual injunction can be filed based upon the agreement of sale, even where no relief of specific performance of agreement of sale is claimed. In Yenugu Achayya v. Ernaki Venkata Subba Rao1, a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Subba Rao and Justice Viswanatha Sastri, the two giants, in the field of law, had aptly and succinctly expressed the purport of Section 53-A as under: “The section does not either expressly or by necessary implication indicate that the rights conferred on the transferee thereunder can only be invoked as a defendant and not as a plaintiff. Under the terms of the section the transferor is debarred from enforcing against the transferee only rights in respect of the property and this bar does not depend upon the array of the parties. The transferee can resist any attempt on the part of the transferor to enforce his rights in respect of the property whatever position he may occupy in the field of litigation. In one sense, it is a statutory recognition of the defensive equity. It enables the transferee to use it as a shield against any attempt on the part of the transferor to enforce his rights against the property. Whether the transferee occupies the position of a plaintiff or a defendant, he can resist the transferor’s claim against the property. Conversely, whether the transferor is the plaintiff or the defendant, he cannot enforce his rights in respect of the property against the transferee. The utility of the section or the rights conferred thereunder should not be made to depend on the maneuvering for positions in a Court of law, otherwise a powerful transferor can always defeat the salutary provisions of the section by dispossessing the transferee by force and compelling him to go to a Court as plaintiff. Doubtless, the right conveyed under the section can be relied upon only as a shield and not as a sword but the protection is available to the transferee both as a plaintiff and as a defendant so long as he uses it as a shield.”
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.820 of 2011 and bt 23-06-2011 Madala Kotaiah Ms Hamsa Minerals & Exports and another. Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.Sreedhar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad :COMMON ORDER: These two revisions arise out of an order, dated 24.03.2008 passed by the Court of I Additional Junior Civil … Continue reading
agency area and agency courts= the suits are to be instituted before the specialized authorities in agency areas, the procedure for adjudication of those suits is similar to the suits filed under C.P.C. Issues are required to be framed, based upon the pleadings, the parties are permitted to adduce evidence and the concerned authority discharging the functions of the Court can render its judgment. In the instant case, the appellants herein presented a plaint claiming the relief of perpetual injunction. The respondents on their part filed a written statement. The Agent to Government ought to have framed an issue and then permitted the parties to adduce evidence. Instead, a report was called for from the Tahsildar. Such a course is totally impermissible in law. To certain extent, the appellants had also contributed for the improper disposal of the appeal. Based upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the appellants have amended the plaint schedule. Taking these developments into account, the Agent to Government dismissed the suit, leaving it open to the appellants to pursue the further remedies. The procedure adopted by the Agent to Government was not at all correct. He ought to have permitted the parties to adduce evidence and then decide the matter on merits. There was absolutely no justification to dispose of the suit without recording any evidence. On this short ground, the A.S. is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Agent to Government, Kakinada for fresh consideration and disposal on merits, after recording evidence.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY A.S.No.1014 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The parties hail from a scheduled area in East Godavari District. The appellants filed O.S.No.10 of 2008 before the Agent to Government, East Godavari District at Kakinada against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4.00 in … Continue reading
At the cost of repetition, it has to be observed that a plaint cannot be rejected only on the basis of a defence available to a defendant, and the question as to whether any averment in a plaint constitutes res judicata or is the basis of any misinterpretation of a judgment has to be considered at the hearing of the suit. Not at the threshold. Though the learned counsel for the parties have addressed arguments touching partly on the merits of the matters, this Court has chosen not to refer to them, lest, any view expressed thereon would have its shadow or impact upon the adjudication of the matter by the trial Court.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. Nos.525 of 2011 and bt 07-07-2011 V. Narasimha Reddy and others Sara Abdul Gafoor and others Counsel for the petitioners : Sri K. Rama Krishna Reddy,learned Senior Counsel Counsel for respondents : Sri Sunil B. Ganu :COMMON ORDER: Respondents 1 to 17 herein (for short ‘the respondents’) filed … Continue reading
1. Whether the 2nd defendant is able to prove that Ex.B-2 dated 7-2-1995 was duly executed by late Bhavanamma in a sound and disposing state of mind and that Ex.B-2 was not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances? 2. Whether plaintiff is able to prove that late Bhavanamma in a sound and disposing state of mind executed Ex.A-1 Will Deed and there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Ex.A-1 Will Deed?
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1 of 2011 28-04-2011 Immadi Venkata Muttaiah @ Baburao Sunkara Babaji Chowdary and another Counsel for the appellant: Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya Counsel for respondents: —————— :JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.40 of 2006, dated 25-10-2010, on the file of the I … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 