KOTAPATI RAMALAKSHMI ALIAS RADHIKA Vs. DONEPARTHI HYMAVATHI
LAWS(APH)-2008-11-90
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 04,2008

KOTAPATI RAMALAKSHMI ALIAS RADHIKA Appellant
VERSUS
DONEPARTHI HYMAVATHI Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SMT.VALLAPUREDDY GEETA BHAVANI VS. NALLU NARASIMHA REDDY AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2012-7-128] [REFERRED TO]
V GEETA BHAVANI VS. NALLU NARASIMHA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2012-7-74] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is an application seeking review of the order dated 11. 7. 2008 passed by this Court in CRP No. 2804 of 2008, whereby, this Court directed the respondents to represent the plaint, and further directed the trial Court to number the suit on such representation.
(2.)THE genesis for this multifaceted litigation is as under : respondents and two others executed an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner and others on 17. 8. 1989 in respect of some property, and they were put in possession of the property. Thereafter, as the respondents have not performed their part of the contract, petitioner and others filed OS No. 73 of 1997 before the learned i Additional District Judge, Nellore, for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The said suit was ultimately dismissed on 12. 11. 2007. However, in the said suit, the trial Court framed an issue as to whether the defendants, (respondents herein), can set up any claim against the plaintiffs (review petitioner and others), and if so, whether it has any bearing on the relief of refund of sale consideration claimed by plaintiffs. While dismissing the suit, the trial court observed that defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to compensation as they gave their shares in the rice mill to the plaintiffs even without consent, but the defendants have not filed any counter-claim seeking compensation.
(3.)IN the light of the observations made by the trial Court and further contending that for no fault of theirs they were dispossessed from the suit property and were deprived of enjoying the fruits of the rice mill, respondents instituted the present suit, being C. F. No. 3072 of 2008 before the Principal District Judge, Nellore, claiming compensation from the date of dispossession i. e. , 18. 12. 1989 till the date of institution of the suit i. e. , 23. 4. 2008. However, office took an objection stating that the claim of the respondents relating to the period from 18. 12. 1989 to 22. 4. 2005 is barred by limitation and the suit is maintainable only from 23. 4. 2005 till the date of institution of the suit. Aggrieved thereby, respondents filed the civil revision petition before this court. This Court, observing that numbering of the suit is between the Court and the plaintiffs, dispensed with notice to the petitioner/defendant, and allowed the said revision on 11. 7. 2008, as stated supra.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.