Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Peddina Subba Rao vs Peedina Prasad on 2 March, 2020

Bathula Venkateswara Reddy vs Bathula Yalamanda Reddy on 4 September, 2023

He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Peddina Subba Rao Vs. Peddina Prasad and others, 3 in which it was held that unregistered document may be required in evidence to prove the factum of the transaction, but not its contents. The main purpose of marking document in the suit was only to prove that they were in possession at the time of filing the suit. 2 2012 SCC Online AP 125 3 2020 SCC Online AP 95
Telangana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P S Sudha - Full Document

Polaka Venkata Rami Reddy vs Polaka Chinnamma on 5 January, 2024

8. It is relevant to mention herein this Court in Peddina Subba Rao Vs. Peddina Prasad and others in C.R.P.No.3310 of 2019 held as follows, "An unregistered sale deed is admissible in evidence for the collateral purpose to the limited extent of showing possession. In the similar manner, an Exchange Deed also is admissible in evidence for the collateral purpose to the limited extent of showing possession. In this regard the collateral transaction is not transaction affecting the immovable property but a transaction which is incidentally connected with that transaction. The unregistered partition deed of insufficiently stamped partition deed can be used for collateral purpose under the proviso only on payment of stamp duty and penalty and the said proposition of law was laid down in P. Rama Subbareddy v.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - K S Reddy - Full Document
1