Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Akula Sangappa S/O Chandrappa R/O ... vs Bandam Siddappa S/O Nagappa And Another on 30 October, 2015

Anjalamma,Ramulamma And Another vs Bala Kistaiahdied And 4 Others on 5 June, 2023

43. As per the ratio of the above judgment, as Exs.A23 and A24 are not issued as per the law and Rules, no inference of correctness of entries can be drawn. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that if any inadmissible document was marked in evidence without any objection by the opposite party, it could still be agitated in the appellate courts and relied upon the judgments of the High Court of A.P. in M/s. Srinivasa Builders v. A. Janga Reddy14, Buggavarapu Narasimhulu v. Sriram Ramanaiah15 and Akula Sangappa v. Banam Siddappa16.
Telangana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Macha Veera Swamy vs Siddavatam Bharathi Alias Macha ... on 9 October, 2020

11. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on Judgments of Yellapu Uma Maheswari vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others1, Akula Sangappa vs. Bandam Siddappa and another2 and Sita Ram Bhama vs. Ramaratar Bhama3, to the effect that any relinquishment of title or right in a family settlement can be done only through a registered and properly stamped document which is absent in the present case. Apart from this requirement of law, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/contesting respondent also submitted that the concurrent findings of the trial Court and appellate Court, that the version of the defendants that there was a family partition and relinquishment is not correct, is a 1 (2015) 16 SCC 787 2 (2016) 2 ALD 615 3 (2018) 15 SCC 130 4 RRR,J S.A.No.425 of 2019 finding of fact and there are no questions of law in the present appeal.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document

Dandamudi Vani vs Madala Venkateswara Rao on 3 January, 2024

Learned counsel would further rely upon a decision of the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Akula Sangappa v. Bandam Siddappa2. Learned counsel would further submit that even the first defendant did not examine any revenue official in support of his contention as regards Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. With the above submissions he would contend that Appeal is liable to be allowed. 1 2004 (2) ALD 451 (DB) 2 2015 LawSuit (Hyd) 866 13 AVRB,J
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Lulla vs Ramesh Lulla, And 2 Others on 10 June, 2025

f) Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon a decision of this Court in Akula Sangappa v. Bandam Siddappa 4 to support his point that any document specifying relinquishment of a right in immovable property and creating a 3 AIR 2022 SCC 1640 4 2016 (1) ALT 368 ETD,J CCCA No.375_2019 15 corresponding right in another under it requires registration. It is again reiterated in this context that in the present case the relinquishment deed is not registered and hence, it was not marked in evidence but there is Ex.B2 which has been admitted by plaintiff and the contents of Ex.B2 reveal that it was executed in lieu of relinquishing the share of the plaintiff by receiving an amount of Rs.1 lakh. Thus, the said case law also cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Telangana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Y. Chandrashaker Gupta vs Smt. Rajeshwaramma on 1 December, 2025

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendant Nos.1 to 4 submits that the learned trial Court wrongly came to a conclusion that the document dated 05.11.1996 is a settlement agreement but not relinquishment deed. The Court below came to a conclusion that the intention of the parties is to settle the dispute between the elders and the document dated 05.11.1996 is a settlement agreement. On the face of the record document dated 05.11.1996 is a relinquishment deed therefore requires registration, in support 3/6 BRMR,J CRP_2001_2023 of his contentions he relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Akula Sangappa Vs. Bandam Siddappa 1 (2) B.Raghupathi Vs. M.Hari 2 and prayed to set aside the order by allowing the Revision.
Telangana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1