Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008
18. Further, the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2008 (4) SCC 594 (Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy), held as follows in paragraph 21(b):
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 2008
12. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-first defendant that the respondents-plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.No.85 of 1987 and the appeal admittedly is pending. Learned counsel for the appellant-first defendant relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 1103 (Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal) and 2009 (1) M.L.J. 1001 (SC) (Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy). The learned counsel for the appellant-second defendant prayed for allowing the Second Appeal.
Section 68 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Muthu Goundar vs Poosari @ Palaniappan And 4 Others on 26 February, 1998
Tax has also been paid as per Exs.A-2 to 6. Since it is a vacant site, the possession follows title. The first appellate Court considered these aspects in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion and there is no irregularity in the judgment passed by the first appellate Court and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs also relied on the decision of this Court reported in 1998 (2) M.L.J. 351 (Muthu Goundar Vs. Poosari alias Palaniappan).
P. Krishnan vs Lakshmi Ammal And Anr. on 10 February, 1989
In this regard it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of Nainar Sundaram,J. (as he then was) reported in Krishnan v. Lakshmi Ammal, (1989) 2 L.W. 76. In an identical circumstance, the learned Judge has concluded:
1