Mr.Gilaka Brahmaiah vs Mr.Rami Reddy Raja Reddy
2024 Latest Caselaw 10406 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Mr.Gilaka Brahmaiah vs Mr.Rami Reddy Raja Reddy on 18 November, 2024

Author: Ninala Jayasurya

Bench: Ninala Jayasurya

 APHC010335322023
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                          [3510]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

              MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
                  TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                  PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

             THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

                        FIRST APPEAL NO: 414/2024

Between:

Mr.G.Brahmaiah,
S/o. G.Ramanaiah, Age 69 years,
Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-167/46/102,
Susheela Sadan, Kalyan Nagar, Hyderabad,
and another                                                 ...APPELLANT(S)

                                     AND

Mr Rami Reddy Raja Reddy
S/o.Gangireddy, Aged 48 years, Occ:Agriculture
R/o.Kothapeta Village, Proddatur Mandal, YSR District.       ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. THOMAS LLOYD

Counsel for the Respondent: 1. K RAGHU VEER

The Court made the following:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants. Also heard Mr. K G Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent, who appeared through Online.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants made submissions to the effect that the Judgment and Decree of the learned Trial Court is not sustainable for the various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal.

3. He submits that though specific pleas with reference to limitation, forgery, etc., are raised, the learned Trial Court has not considered the same in the proper perspective. He submits that the petitioners/appellants without prejudice to their contentions, are ready to offer immovable property as security and requests for granting interim stay of execution of Judgment and Decree.

4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners are having valuable properties, they are also running Engineering colleges and the security as offered, instead of depositing the decreetal amount, would indicate that the petitioners, in one way or the other deprive the respondent from enjoying fruits of the Decree.

5. We have considered the submissions made. It is a suit for recovery of amount which was decreed and its correctness or otherwise is required to be examined.

6. Therefore, pending consideration of the appeal, this Court deems it appropriate to grant interim stay of execution of the Judgment and Decree under challenge, subject to the condition of the petitioners/appellants, depositing half of the decreetal amount, including costs and interest within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. On such deposit of the amounts the respondent is permitted to withdraw the same.

List the matter on 20.01.2025.

____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J

________________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY,J Date: 18.11.2024 Ksj