Showing posts from January, 2013

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012
Dated 9th August, 2012 Judgment:           The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated
27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation .           The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008.  As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale.   The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on
12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

As per Order 21 Rule 102 of C.P.C. nothing in Rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment-debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit. Having considered the scope of Rule 102 of Order 21 of CPC it was held in VEERABHATHINI JANARDHAN v. TERALA RAJAIAH (since died) Per L.R.[4] by one of us (G.Rohini, J) that the petitioner therein who was the transferee pendente lite cannot maintain an application under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC. The same principle is attracted to the case on hand since the appellants are claiming title and possession on the basis of an alleged transfer that took place during the pendency of O.S.No.8 of 1996. Hence on that ground also they cannot maintain the applications under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold on Point No.1 that the claim petitions filed by the appellants herein under 21 Rule 97 of CPC are not maintainable and the Court below has rightly dismissed the same. Point No.2:

+ C.C.C.A. NOs.61 & 87  OF 2012
%Date: 27.08.2012                                                                               
In C.C.C.A. No.61 OF 2012:
Between #1. T. Srinivas and another.    .…               Petitioners
And $1. E. Ravinder and another             ..              Respondents
In C.C.C.A. No.87 OF 2012:
Between #Smt. T. Padmini @ G.Padmini                   …                Petitioner
And $1. E. Ravinder and others.               ..               Respondents

! Counsel for the appellants     :  Sri L. Ravichander, representing     Sri C. Ramachandra Raju and     Sri R. Chandrasekhar Reddy
^ Counsel for respondent No.1:   Sri J.V. Suryanarayana, rep.              Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy
  Counsel for respondent No.2:          --



Kambalapalli Village of Pamulapadu Mandal, Kurnool District was acquired for the purpose of excavation of Srisailam Right Bank Canal = As could be seen from the fresh order passed by the reference Court dated 13.07.2006 (marked as Ex.A.5), the compensation was enhanced from Rs.11,030/- to Rs.25,000/- and Rs.7,547/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre for category-I and category-II lands respectively on the basis of Ex.A3, which is a certified copy of the judgment in A.S.No.80 of 1994, dated 15.10.1996 relating to the adjacent village, which was also acquired for the same purpose.- Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Court below is hereby enhanced for category-I lands from Rs.11,030/- to Rs.25,000/- per acre and for category-II lands from Rs.7,547/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre. It is also made clear that the appellants are entitled to other statutory benefits as provided under law.

APPEAL SUIT Nos.431, 667, 669, 696, 697, 733, 734, 735, 1070 and1118 of 2002 And L.A.A.S.Nos.337, 354, 356, 357, 377 and 389 of 2012
Dated: 20.12.2012
In A.S. No.431 of 2002
Telegu Laxmamma                                                                       ..                 Appellant
The Special Deputy Collector/LAO                                                 ..                Respondent
In A.S. No.667 of 2002
Mangati Venkata Ramana                                                                       ..                Appellant
The Special Deputy Collector/LAO                                                 ..                Respondent In A.S. No.669 of 2002
Y.Linga Reddy and others                                                                       ..                 Appellants
The Special Deputy Collector/LAO                                                 ..                Responde…