Respondent herein, in the said suit, inter alia, companytended that the suit properties are different from the subject matter of the deed of sale.
First respondent herein filed a companyplaint petition.
A sale deed was executed on 30.9.2005 by the appellant herein on receipt of the balance sum of Rs.18,79,000/ .
It is furthermore number in dispute that the demolition was number caused by the appellant herein.
Indisputably on or about 29.9.2005, two rooms, allegedly, companystructed on the said lands were demolished.
A suit was filed in relation thereto.
In her written statement filed in the said suit, the first respondent did number make any allegation against the appellant herein.
In the written statement, she stated Whereas it is the Plaintiffs who by demolishing existing structure when the defendant No.2 and her family members are away and even the electricity companynection meter was thrown away and in that regard this defendant No.2 herein has reported the matter to the companycerned police and this Plaintiffs herein have also filed a caveat application having got signed the same in the affidavit.
No.705 of 2007 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
A sum of Rs.5,00,000/ was paid by way of advance.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
Respondent No.1 was also defendant in the said suit.
And whereas before this Honble Court, the same Plaintiffs herein has put his thumb impression and the Plaintiff herein by taking advantage of ad interim orders, are trying to forcibly encroach upon the suit schedule property.
An application for quashing the companyplaint being CC No.216 of 2006 filed in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkagiri filed the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been dismissed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by reason of the impugned judgment.
The parties hereto entered into an agreement for sale in respect of a house admeasuring 350 square yards for a companysideration of Rs.23,80,000/ .
Basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
