Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)
Aitha Dubba Rajam Alias Raju S/O ... vs Aitha Pochaiah, S/O Aitha Dubbarajam ... on 5 January, 2007
cites
K. Adivi Naidu & Ors vs E. Duruvasulu Naidu & Ors on 11 September, 1995
The Supreme Court further held that:
Muthangi Ayyanna vs Muthangi Jaggarao And Ors. on 26 October, 1976
In M. Ayyanna v. M. Jaggarao , a learned single Judge of this Court held that the final decree cannot amend or go behind the preliminary decree on a matter determined by the preliminary decree.
Pothuri Thulasidas vs Potru Nageswara Rao on 3 September, 2004
In Pothuri Thulasi Das v. Potru Nageswara Rao , this Court held that:
N.S.S.Narayana Sarma & Ors vs M/S.Goldstone Exports P. Ltd. & Ors on 23 November, 2001
9. The decisions as referred above indicate as to what are the powers of a Court during the final decree proceedings whether the order of the final decree is in terms of the preliminary decree or it can go beyond preliminary decree and make an enquiry respect of the third parties etc. The decisions are very clear that in order to adjudicate the third party claim, the third party must move the Court during the pendency of the suit for preliminary decree or cause obstruction for delivery of the property and file an Application under Order 21 Rule 97 regarding the declaration of title or file a separate suit for declaration that the decree in the partition suit is not binding on him and his property is excludable from the plaint schedule property.
Section 97 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Parsam Venkataramayya vs Parsam Venkataramappa And Ors. on 25 November, 1952
In Venkataramayya v. Venkataramappa , a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that:
Rukya Bee And Anr. vs Syed Afzal And Ors. on 6 June, 2005
In Rukya Bee and Anr. v. Syed Afzal and Ors. , a learned single Judge of this Court held that:
1