CHEBROL SRIRAMALU Vs VAKALAPUDI SATYANARAYANA
Bench: H.L. DATTU,DIPAK MISRA
Case number: C.A. No.-005477-005477 / 2013
Diary number: 156 / 2011
Advocates: V. N. RAGHUPATHY Vs
S. N. BHAT
Page 1
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5477 OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL)NO.735 OF 2011)
CHEBROL SRIRAMALU ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
VAKALAPUDI SATYANARAYANA ... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The Plaintiff/ Respondent herein had filed a Suit for
Specific Performance of the Agreement of Sale, dated 23.08.1997. The
Trial Court by its order dated 20.07.2004 has decreed the suit.
Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the Defendant/ Appellant
had preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court by
the impugned judgment and order dated 22.07.2010 has dismissed the
appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the Defendant/ Appellant is
before us in this appeal, by Special Leave.
3. Heard Shri Basava Prabhu Patil, learned senior counsel for
the Defendant/ Appellant and Shri S.N. Bhat, Learned counsel for the
Plaintiff/ Respondent.
4. Shri Patil, learned senior counsel takes us through the
evidence deposed by P.W.1 wherein a specific question was put to the
Defendant as to whether he was aware that the suit property is an
Page 2
2
ancestral property or not. In response to the said question, the
Defendant/ appellant has stated that the property is a joint family
property. In spite of those statements, the Trial Court has not
thought it fit to frame an additional issue and decided the lis
between the parties. In our view, the said issue is wholly relevant
and significant for the effective disposal of the suit filed by the
Plaintiff/ Respondent.
5. In that view of the matter, we cannot sustain the judgment
and order passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.
Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned judgment and order, we
remand the matter back to the Trial Court with a specific direction
that the Trial Court would frame the additional issue insofar as the
status of the property is concerned after affording opportunity to
both the parties to lead their further evidence.
6. We are informed by the learned counsel Shri Patil that the
Defendant/appellant is in possession of the property and his
possession shall not be disturbed either by the Plaintiff/respondent
or his representatives till the disposal of the Suit.
7. Under these circumstances, we direct that the title of the
property in possession of Defendant/ appellant shall not be
disturbed either by the Plaintiff/respondent or his representatives
till the disposal of the Suit.
Page 3
3
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Ordered accordingly.
...................J. (H.L. DATTU)
...................J. (DIPAK MISRA)
NEW DELHI; JULY 12, 2013