Search results
Aug 27, 2021 · A finding is given in the suit that the land purchased by Srinivasulu Naidu under Ex.A1 and A2 is patta land of Shaik Ahmed. To decide the title of the plaintiffs in 4971 sq. yards title of Srinivasulu Naidu covered by Exs.A1 and A2 was also considered.
- Ramadhar Shrivas V. Bhagwandas9
It was also stated that though it was the case of the...
- Daryao & Ors. V. State of U.P. & Ors
Allahabad High Court Daryao Singh vs State Of U.P. on 15...
- Ramadhar Shrivas V. Bhagwandas9
Srinivasulu Naidu filed an application under Section 8 of the Act before the Tribunal alleging that the land measuring 7128.5 sq. yards in Survey No. 299/2 (old Survey No. 403/1), Ward No. 8, Block-3, Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad, is the land grabbed by the Union of India.
The applicants alleged that their father had purchased 2 acres 27 guntas of land in Survey No. 299/2 from one Shri Shaik Ahmed under two registered sale deeds dated 12.12.1959 (Exhs. A1 and A2). The purchaser, i.e., the father of the applicants was put in possession thereof.
- Subject
- Legal Provisions
- Overview
- Issues
- Judgement Analysis
- Conclusion
The doctrine of res judicatabecomes active when a party attempts to file a subsequent lawsuit on the same matter. The Apex Court, in this judgement, explained the applicability of this principle between co-defendants.
Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 – The power and procedure of the Special Court to take cognizance of cases arising out of land grabbing or concerning the owner...Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code – The court shall not try any matter, which has already been decided by a competent court between the same parties involving the same issue.The respondents being the legal heirs of S.V. Srinivasulu Naidu (deceased), claimed that their father was the owner of the land in Survey No. 299/2, Ward No. 8, Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad. Their f...As a result, the respondents had filed an application under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 against the appellant before the Hyderabad Tribunal. They also alle...The respondent's father had filed a written statement, affirming that plaintiff was the rightful owner and was entitled to the title deed. He also expressed no objection to the suit being decreed....Later, in 1993, after the death of S.V. Srinivasulu Naidu, their legal heirs contended before the Tribunal that they are the rightful owners of the land measuring 7128.5 sq. yards, and the Governme...Whether the order passed in the first suit by the plaintiff, operates as Res Judicata?Whether the Union of India had a rightful title over the land in the issue?The case of Munni Bibi & Anr. V. Tirloki Nath & Ors, was the first where the Privy Council examined whether there can be res judicata between co-defendants. Three principles of res judicata as betw...
Res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC has a purpose to prevent multiplicity of suits and to prevent the other party from unnecessary harassment, once the matter has been adjudicated. However, this principle is not applicable if the subject matter of the suit is not similar to that of the earlier suit. It is applicable if the matter in the former...
- CCI Team
Sep 6, 2021 · Plaintiffs, legal heirs of Late S.V. Srinivasulu Naidu filed an application before the Special Court, Hyderabad under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act,1982, alleging that their land was grabbed by the Union of India.
Sep 1, 2021 · Background facts. Legal heirs of Late S.V. Srinivasulu Naidu filed an application before the Special Court, Hyderabad (Tribunal) under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition)...
Get free access to the complete judgment in Srinivasulu Naidu v. Damodaraswami Naidu And Others on CaseMine.
