Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)
Budarthi Janaki vs Sikha Krishna And Another on 22 September, 2022 cites

A. Raja Reddy vs K. R. Subramanyam & Anr. Etc. on 23 September, 2016

Admittedly, the suit is filed for the relief of perpetual injunction. The only question that arises in the suit is whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The burden rests upon the plaintiff to prove his possession. The parties cannot be permitted to gather evidence to prove their possession. They have to satisfy the court through oral and documentary evidence. As observed by this Court in A. Gopal Reddy v. R. Subramanyam 4 2016 (6) 795 (DB) 5 2022 (2) ALT 80 (TS) 6 2022 (3) ALT 662 (TS) Dr.GRR,J 5 CRP No.1730 OF 2022 Reddy and another (1 supra), appointment of commissioner at the instance of the defendant in a suit for perpetual injunction is a rare phenomenon. This Court observed that:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

M/S Adarsh Constructions, Hyderabad ... vs Qamaarunnissa Begum, Hyderabad Anr on 26 April, 2022

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the respondents - defendants had taken a specific plea that no Survey No.805 was available in Paloncha Revenue Records. It was necessary to appoint an advocate commissioner to locate the 1 2013 (4) ALD 347 2 2006 (4) ALD 675 3 2015 (2) ALD 206 Dr.GRR,J 4 CRP No.1730 OF 2022 petition schedule property with the help of Mandal Surveyor. The trial court rightly allowed the petition for effective adjudication of the matter in controversy and relied upon the judgments of this court in Smt. A. Laxmamma and another v. Smt. A. Venkatamma and another4, M.Yadaiah and another v. M. Chilkamma and others5 and Adarsh Constructions, Hyderabad and another v. Qamaarunnissa Begum and another6.
Telangana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1