2017 A.P. Digest - June part

2017 A.P. Digest - June part-1
suit for specific performance - sale agreement is a fabricated one - The Court
below took the aid of a magnifying glass to look at the dates, to understand that the sale agreement was brought into existence and is not a genuine one. But even to the naked eye the said dubiety would be evident. The sale agreement, as rightly observed by the Court below, is dated 23.05.1987 whereas the stamp paper was purchased on 27.05.1987. The said inconsistency is insuperable.P.W.1 asserts that the stamp paper was purchased on the date of 
agreement itself,which is 23rd, whereas the stamp paper bears a glaring date of 27th.-the evidence of the attestors and any one testifying to have been a witness to such agreement, like P.W.6 also would only be nothing but untrustworthy.-no other understanding except that the sale agreement was brought into existence by all concerned, unmindful of the said possible discrepancy.-From the fact that the plaintiff fabricated the sale agreement with the help of
P.W.2, with whom, allegedly, the defendants had some monetary  transaction, it can be said that the entire record pertaining to the alleged monetary transactions between the plaintiff and the
defendants is fabricated.
the plaintiff came to the court with uncleaned hands not entitled for specific performance- The registered sale deed as per the averments of the plaint has to be
executed on or before 22.01.1988. In order to understand the said date as an error, the agreement also recites the same and strangely, the suit is also filed on the said date. It is very difficult to understand as to how the plaintiff even without waiting for a single
day, chose to file the suit on the date, which is specified to be the date for registration of the sale

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS