CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1999) 06 AP CK 0114

P. Reddappa Reddy and Others vs Mandyam Savithramma and Others

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 9 June 1999 · Citation: (1999) 4 ALT 724

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision Petition No. 1136 of 1999

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 354 words

Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.—The petitioners herein had filed I.P. No. 6 of 1988 in the Court of the Addl. Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi against the respondents 1 to 4 herein. It further appears from the record that one Anandappa, who happens to be the husband of first respondent and father of respondents 2 to 4 herein, had borrowed certain amounts under different pronotes from the petitioners herein. But much prior to the filing of the I.P., Anandappa died and the respondents 1 to 4 herein succeeded to his property. The first respondent before filing of I.P., against her and her children sold away the property to the 5th respondent. Thereafter, the I.P., came to be filed against respondents 1 to 4 and also for declaration that the properties sold by respondents 1 to 4 to the 5th respondent is legally invalid and further prayer was made by the petitioners to set aside the sale. The learned Addl. Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi allowed I.P. No. 6 of 1988. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondents 1 to 4 herein carried the matter by filing A.S. No. 50 of 1993 in the Court of the IV Addl. District Judge, Tirupathi. The learned Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed in I.P. No. 6 of 1988. Against the said order, the present revision has been filed.

2.

I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners at the stage of admission.

3.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners is not able to satisfy this Court. If at all, Anandappa had borrowed certain amounts from the petitioners herein how I.P., is maintainable against the legal representatives of Anandappa. The same view appears to have been adopted by the learned IV Addl. District Judge, Tirupathi and dismissed the appeal. This Court finds that there is no error of law committed by the learned IV Addl. District Judge, Tirupathi.

4.

Therefore, this Court finds no merits in the revision and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

5.

However, the petitioners herein can work out their remedies with an appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum if their claim is within the limitation.