CHENNADI JALAPATHI REDDY vs BADDAM PRATAPA REDDY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. — C.A. No. 7818 - 7819/2009

Case under Section III-A. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010260322008

Filing Date

08-Sep-2008

Registration No

C.A. No. 7818 - 7819/2009

Diary Number

26032/2008

Order Date

27-Aug-2019

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2019 INSC 959

Disposal Type

Allowed

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHENNADI JALAPATHI REDDY

    Adv. D. BHARATHI REDDY[P-1]

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BADDAM PRATAPA REDDY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.

    Adv. C. S. N. MOHAN RAO (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-1] D. MAHESH BABU[R-1.3] D. MAHESH BABU[R-1.1] D. MAHESH BABU[R-1.2] D. MAHESH BABU[R-1.3]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Aug-2019

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 27-Aug-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 27-Aug-2019

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

  5. 31-Jul-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 31-Jul-2019

    After Week/Month/Vacation

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

  7. 30-Jul-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 30-Jul-2019

    After Week/Month/Vacation

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

  9. 11-Jul-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 11-Jul-2019

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

  11. 21-Jan-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 21-Jan-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  13. 07-Sep-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 07-Sep-2016

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 07-Sep-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 25-Jul-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 25-Jul-2016

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 25-Jul-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 04-May-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 04-May-2016

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 04-May-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 21-Jan-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  23. 21-Jan-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  24. 28-Oct-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  25. 28-Oct-2015

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  26. 28-Oct-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  27. 06-May-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  28. 06-May-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  29. 10-Nov-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  30. 10-Nov-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  31. 16-Sep-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  32. 16-Sep-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  33. 14-Feb-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  34. 28-Oct-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  35. 26-Jul-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  36. 19-Nov-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  37. 30-Nov-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  38. 24-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  39. 19-Oct-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  40. 24-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  41. 13-Jul-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  42. 11-May-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  43. 13-Jan-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  44. 16-Dec-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  45. 17-Nov-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  46. 08-Sep-2008

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 7818 - 7819/2009

View Full Judgment
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal, restoring the Trial Court's decree for specific performance of a 1993 property sale agreement. The High Court had reversed the Trial Court's judgment based solely on a handwriting expert's opinion that the defendant's signature was forged. The Supreme Court held that expert evidence should rarely override substantive testimony and found the signature genuine based on: (1) credible testimony from attesting witnesses; (2) the defendant's brother's identification of the signature; (3) an unchallenged earnest money receipt bearing the defendant's admitted signature; and (4) the defendant's failure to deny receiving payment. The Court emphasized that handwriting expert opinions are weak evidence requiring corroboration and must be approached cautiously against eyewitness testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts District Courts
Search Another Case