Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Judgments

Recent judgments citing this act

1. Syed Zainulabeddin Moosvi @ Taqi & Anr. vs. Syed Ali Moosvi on 09 January, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana9 Jan 2023

   Case Name: Syed Zainulabeddin Moosvi @ Taqi & Anr. vs. Syed Ali Moosvi on 09 January, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 09 January, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice M. Laxman Subject: Civil Appeal – Partition of Property, Joint Venture, Refund of Investment Key Legal Propositions 1. A claim for partition requires establishing an undivided interest in the property, either through co-ownership or a valid transfer creating such interest. 2. An oral agreement to share property in lieu of investment, without a written and registered instrument, is insufficient to establish a transferable interest under the Transfer of Property Act. 3. Where a plaintiff proves investment in a property, and the defendant utilizes it, the court may mould the relief to direct refund of the invested amount, even if a formal partition is not granted. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a suit for partition and separate possession of a property known as Golden Glory guest house. The plaintiff claimed a 1/3rd share based on an alleged joint venture and investment in the property’s construction. The trial court allowed the suit, allotting the plaintiff a 1/3rd sh

2. P. Gopinath & K. Lakshman Rao vs. Lt. Col. B.B. Sahgal (Retd) & Ors. on 01 February, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana1 Feb 2023

   Case Name: P. Gopinath & K. Lakshman Rao vs. Lt. Col. B.B. Sahgal (Retd) & Ors. on 01 February, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 01 February, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice A. Venkateshwara Reddy Subject: Specific Performance of Contract, Refund of Advance Payment, Limitation Act Key Legal Propositions 1. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property, the plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. 2. Where time is stipulated as the essence of the contract in an agreement for sale, the buyer's failure to perform their obligations within the stipulated time may disentitle them to specific performance. 3. The limitation period for enforcing a statutory charge created under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, for refund of advance money in an agreement to sell immovable property is 12 years, governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10.06.1988 concerning a property in Secunderabad. The plaintiffs/appellants sought

3. Anangi Tirupathaiah & Ors. vs. The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare & Ors. on 30 October, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana30 Oct 2023

   Case Name: Anangi Tirupathaiah & Ors. vs. The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare & Ors. on 30 October, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 30 October, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Alok Aradhe & Hon'ble Sri Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar Subject: Land Transfer Regulation, Validity of Sale Deeds, Scheduled Areas, Possession Prior to Regulation I of 1970. Key Legal Propositions 1. Transfers of immovable property in scheduled areas made prior to the commencement of Regulation I of 1970 are not affected by the Regulation and authorities under Section 3(2) of the Regulation lack jurisdiction over such transfers. 2. Authorities cannot question the validity of sale deeds executed prior to the commencement of Regulation I of 1970 on grounds like non-registration. Such matters are to be adjudicated by a competent civil court. 3. Long delays in initiating proceedings relating to land transfers, particularly when no claim to title is made and revenue records indicate prior possession, render the proceedings unsustainable. Judgment Summary Background: This intra-court appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition challenging orders of ejectment

4. S. Ranga Reddy & Ors. vs. Dr. Nandan Singh & Anr. on 09 January, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana9 Jan 2023

   Case Name: S. Ranga Reddy & Ors. vs. Dr. Nandan Singh & Anr. on 09 January, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 09 January, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Sambasivarao Naidu Subject: Specific Performance of Contract, Oral Agreement of Sale, Ownership of Property Key Legal Propositions 1. A contract, whether written or oral, is valid under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, but the plaintiff bears the burden of proving a concluded contract in cases of oral agreements. 2. In suits for specific performance, the Court retains discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, and is not bound to grant relief if it leads to oppression or unfair advantage. 3. A mere advance payment, without clear terms regarding the property, extent, and parties involved, does not constitute a concluded contract for sale. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arises from a suit for specific performance based on an alleged oral agreement of sale and a receipt (Ex.A1). The plaintiffs claimed an agreement to purchase land from the defendants, with an initial advance payment. The defendants denied the agreement and asserted the return of the cheque. The trial cou

5. Basani Radhamma (died as per LRs) vs Smt. Basani Nirmala on 14 July, 2020

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana14 Jul 2020

   Case Name: Basani Radhamma (died as per LRs) vs Smt. Basani Nirmala on 14 July, 2020 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 20 September, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Sambasiva Rao Naidu Subject: Partition Suit, Will, Inheritance, Family Law, Evidence Key Legal Propositions 1. A plaint not signed by the plaintiff does not automatically invalidate the suit, especially if the plaintiff acknowledges the suit's purpose and the circumstances suggest a plausible explanation for the discrepancy in signature. 2. Failure to add necessary parties to a suit is not fatal if a valid will exists, establishing a clear beneficiary and negating the need to include other potential heirs. 3. Nomination in bank accounts or as a beneficiary does not automatically confer ownership rights; evidence of actual contribution or ownership is required. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a dismissed partition suit (OS.No.319 of 2006) concerning properties of a deceased individual, Athmaram. The plaintiffs (legal heirs of Radhamma, Athmaram’s mother) sought partition, while the defendant (Athmaram’s widow) claimed exclusive ownership based on a will and nomination. Th

6. C.C.C.A.No.46 of 2013 on 02 January, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana2 Jan 2023

   Case Name: C.C.C.A.No.46 of 2013 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 02 January, 2023 Bench: Smt. Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy Subject: Eviction, Lease, Arrears of Rent, Damages, Jurisdiction Key Legal Propositions 1. A co-owner can file a suit for eviction of a tenant without the consent of other co-owners, with consent being deemed unless disagreement is shown. 2. Civil Courts possess jurisdiction over eviction suits where the pecuniary value exceeds the Rent Controller’s jurisdiction. 3. A defect in jurisdiction renders a decree a nullity and can be raised at any stage, including execution or collateral proceedings. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a suit seeking eviction, arrears of rent, and damages against the defendants occupying a property leased from the plaintiff. The trial court partially decreed the suit, granting eviction and arrears of rent but dismissing the claim for damages. The 2nd defendant (appellant) challenges the decree, raising issues of jurisdiction, validity of notice, and consent of co-owners. Held: A. On Jurisdiction: Majority View: The High Court upheld the trial court’s jurisdiction, noting the suit’s pec

7. Mohd Osman vs Shaik Osman Zahid Amoodi on 08 February, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana8 Feb 2023

   Case Name: Mohd Osman vs Shaik Osman Zahid Amoodi on 08 February, 2023 Court: HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD Date of Judgment: 08 February, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani Subject: Eviction, Tenancy, Transfer of Property Act Key Legal Propositions 1. Attornment of tenancy is desirable as it acknowledges the relationship between a tenant and a new landlord, implying continuity of tenancy. 2. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act allows for continuation of tenancy terms upon transfer of landlord's rights. 3. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is proper when a new landlord seeks to enforce the terms of the existing lease. Judgment Summary Background: This Second Appeal arises from a suit for ejectment. The appellant/plaintiff sought eviction of the respondents/defendants from a commercial property, claiming ownership after purchasing the property from the original landlord. The trial court and the first appellate court both decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, raising questions regarding the necessity of attornment and notice for eviction. Held: A. On Issue of Attornment and Notice: Majority

8. Yanaganti Gangachalam vs Yanaganti Chandraiah on 06 June, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana6 Jun 2023

   Case Name: Yanaganti Gangachalam vs Yanaganti Chandraiah on 06 June, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 06 June, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani Subject: Partition of Jointly Owned Property, Fraud, Decree Validity, Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act. Key Legal Propositions 1. A High Court in a Second Appeal cannot re-appreciate evidence or facts unless a substantial question of law is involved. 2. A decree obtained based on fraudulent misrepresentation can be challenged, but failure to seek its cancellation in a separate suit does not automatically validate it for the purposes of a partition suit. 3. Courts can grant partition based on established ownership and existing decrees, even if the basis for those decrees is contested, provided the party seeking partition demonstrates a valid share in the property. Judgment Summary Background: This Second Appeal arises from a suit seeking partition of a house plot jointly purchased by the appellant and respondent. The trial court and first appellate court both decreed the suit in favour of the appellant for partition of half the property. The respondent argued that the appel

9. The Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co-Operative Federation Limited vs T.Chandrasekar Reddy and Ors. on 27 June, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana27 Jun 2023

   Case Name: The Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co-Operative Federation Limited vs T.Chandrasekar Reddy and Ors. on 27 June, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 27 June, 2023 Bench: P. Naveen Rao and Nagesh Bheemapaka, JJ. Subject: Specific Relief, Contract, Transfer of Property, Urban Land Ceiling Act Key Legal Propositions 1. A composite offer for cancellation of an agreement of sale, contingent upon refund of advance with interest, cannot be separated into distinct components. Acceptance of the refund portion does not automatically imply cancellation if the interest component remains unaddressed. 2. Readiness and willingness to perform one's part of a contract is a crucial prerequisite for invoking the benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, even when a party is in possession. Mere passive occupation of property is insufficient. 3. Suppression of material facts, such as government exemptions impacting land ownership, can invalidate claims and undermine the basis for seeking relief. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a suit for recovery of possession of land. An agreement of sale was entered into

10. Andhra Bank vs Kotari Bhima Shankara Rao & Ors. on 06 November, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh6 Nov 2023

    Case Name: Andhra Bank vs Kotari Bhima Shankara Rao & Ors. on 06 November, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Date of Judgment: 06 November, 2023 Bench: Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao Subject: Civil Appeal – Equitable Mortgage – Deposit of Title Deeds – Section 58 of Transfer of Property Act Key Legal Propositions 1. A mortgage by deposit of title deeds under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not require a formal instrument; delivery of title deeds with the intent to create a security is sufficient. 2. The intention to create a security can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case, including admissions made by the defendant. 3. In assessing credibility, courts must consider probabilities and surrounding circumstances, and a failure to examine key witnesses can impact the weight given to evidence. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a suit seeking a preliminary decree for recovery of a loan amount based on an equitable mortgage. The plaintiff bank (Andhra Bank) had advanced a loan to the defendants, and claimed that the 3rd defendant deposited her title deeds as security. The trial court granted a preli

11. Kolluri Padmavathi vs Kolluri Venkateswara Rao on 16 November, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh16 Nov 2023

    Case Name: Kolluri Padmavathi vs Kolluri Venkateswara Rao on 16 November, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 16 November, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice T.Mallikarjuna Rao Subject: Gift Deed, Fraud, Undue Influence, Coercion, Transfer of Property Act, Contract Act Key Legal Propositions 1. A gift must be voluntary and without consideration, requiring free consent from the donor, uninfluenced by coercion, undue influence, or misrepresentation. 2. The burden of proving voluntariness in a gift lies on the donee, especially when the relationship between donor and donee is strained and circumstances suggest a lack of genuine affection. 3. A gift deed executed under duress, misrepresentation, or undue influence is voidable at the option of the donor, and the court may set aside such a deed if the donor proves lack of free consent. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a suit seeking cancellation of a registered gift deed dated 28.04.2003. The plaintiff/appellant (wife) alleges that the gift deed, transferring property to the defendant/respondent (husband), was obtained through fraud, coercion, and undue influence. The plaintiff claims she was compe

12. Samayamanthri Veera Venkata Jagannadha Rao vs Velaga Sobha Rani on 07 October, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh7 Oct 2023

    Case Name: Samayamanthri Veera Venkata Jagannadha Rao vs Velaga Sobha Rani on 07 October, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi Date of Judgment: 07 October, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao Subject: Civil Appeal – Recovery of Possession – Agreement of Sale – Adverse Possession – Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act Key Legal Propositions 1. A mere agreement of sale does not create any right or interest in the property, and a party executing such an agreement without the right to do so cannot claim any benefit. 2. For Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act to apply, the transferee must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, and mere possession is insufficient. 3. Permissive possession, arising from an agreement of sale, cannot ripen into adverse possession without a clear demonstration of hostile animus and a disclaimer of rights under the agreement. Judgment Summary Background: This appeal arises from a suit seeking recovery of possession of property based on a prior settlement deed and an alleged agreement of sale. The plaintiff sought to evict the defendant, who claimed possession based on the agre

13. Thammireddigari Anitha vs Gampala Anil Kumar on 12 May, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh12 May 2023

    Case Name: Thammireddigari Anitha vs Gampala Anil Kumar on 12 May, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Date of Judgment: 12 May, 2023 Bench: Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao and Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar Subject: Civil Appeal – Partition Suit – Interim Injunction Key Legal Propositions 1. A plaintiff seeking partition must establish a joint family property with an adequate nucleus and demonstrate how the disputed properties were acquired from that nucleus. 2. A temporary injunction in a partition suit is a discretionary relief and is granted based on a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience. 3. A co-owner cannot transfer a share in jointly owned immovable property without the authority of the court, as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Judgment Summary Background: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises from an order of the Family Court declining to grant an injunction restraining the respondent from alienating certain properties claimed by the appellant as joint family properties. The appellant, a sister, filed a suit for partition against her brother, the respondent, alleging that the properties were jointly owned

14. Appeal Suit No.683 of 2016, Panuganti Venkat Sai Durga @ Laila vs Mastan Bi on 09 May, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh9 May 2023

    Case Name: Appeal Suit No.683 of 2016 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Date of Judgment: 09 May, 2023 Bench: Honourable Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao and Honourable Sri Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad Subject: Property Law, Partition, Transfer of Property Act, Lis Pendens, Legal Heirs, Validity of Sale Deeds Key Legal Propositions 1. A decree declaring a legal status operates retrospectively to the date of birth or occurrence of the status, not merely from the date of the decree. 2. A purchaser is subject to *lis pendens* even after dismissal of a suit if an appeal is subsequently filed, affecting the validity of transactions during the pendency of the litigation. 3. An unregistered document cannot be relied upon as conclusive proof of compromise or relinquishment of rights. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arises from a suit concerning ownership of a property. The dispute involves conflicting claims of inheritance and subsequent sale deeds. The plaintiff claimed ownership based on sale deeds executed by C. Venkata Rao and C. Ramana Murthy, while the defendant asserted ownership through a prior sale deed and claimed to be the legal heir of the

15. Borra Narendra vs The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India & Anr. on 26 September, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh26 Sept 2023

    Case Name: Borra Narendra vs The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India & Anr. on 26 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh :: Amaravati Date of Judgment: 26 September, 2023 Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari & Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana Subject: Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act); Tenancy Rights; Writ Petition Key Legal Propositions 1. A valid tenancy existing prior to the creation of a mortgage cannot be disturbed by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, requiring determination of the lease per Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. 2. Tenancies coming into existence after mortgage creation but before a Section 13(2) notice must satisfy conditions of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act. 3. Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act overrides the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, particularly Section 65A, establishing the primacy of the SARFAESI Act. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioner, claiming to be a lessee of the property mortgaged to the Respondent Bank, filed a writ petition seeking to prevent the Bank from taking possession of the property unde

16. K. Venkateswarlu vs K. Samrajyam Sharma and Ors. on 27 July, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh27 Jul 2023

    Case Name: K. Venkateswarlu vs K. Samrajyam Sharma and Ors. on 27 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 27 July, 2023 Bench: Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao Subject: Property Law, Gift Deed, Revocation of Settlement, Fraud, Specific Relief Act, Transfer of Property Act, Evidence Act. Key Legal Propositions 1. A registered gift deed, once accepted, cannot be unilaterally revoked by the donor in the absence of a specific agreement or condition for revocation. 2. Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act preclude the admission of oral evidence to contradict the terms of a registered document, unless it establishes fraud, illegality, or other grounds for invalidation. 3. A donor cannot unilaterally cancel a gift deed; any cancellation requires the participation of both parties, aligning with Rule 26(1)(k)(i) of relevant rules. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal arises from a suit seeking cancellation of a revocation deed and a permanent injunction restraining interference with the plaintiff’s possession of a property gifted to him by his mother. The mother, prior to her death, revoked the gift deed, alleging fraud and failure of consideration. The

17. Konathala Ramalingaswamy vs. Maddula Satyanarayana Murthy on 20 October, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh20 Oct 2023

    Case Name: Konathala Ramalingaswamy vs. Maddula Satyanarayana Murthy on 20 October, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 20 October, 2023 Bench: V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J. Subject: Cancellation of Sale Deed, Fraud, Limitation, Power of Attorney, Possession Key Legal Propositions 1. A suit for cancellation of a sale deed based on fraud is governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, with a limitation period of three years from the date of knowledge of the fraud. 2. Section 17 of the Limitation Act applies when fraud is alleged, extending the limitation period until the plaintiff discovers the fraud or could have discovered it with reasonable diligence, but does not protect a plaintiff who deliberately remains ignorant. 3. When a suit seeks both cancellation of a sale deed and recovery of possession, the limitation period is determined by the substantive relief sought – cancellation of the sale deed – and not the consequential relief of possession. Judgment Summary Background: This Second Appeal arises from a suit seeking cancellation of a registered sale deed (Ex.A2) dated 06.07.1988, alleging it was obtained by fraud by the defendant, who was also the Ge

18. Vella Saroja Devi vs Satya Ramendra Krishna on 07 October, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh7 Oct 2023

    Case Name: Vella Saroja Devi vs Satya Ramendra Krishna on 07 October, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 07 October, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu Subject: Property Law, Gift Deed, Fraud, Misrepresentation, Transfer of Property Act Key Legal Propositions 1. A gift deed can be cancelled if proven to be obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. 2. The burden of proving due execution of a gift deed lies on the donee (recipient). Failure to produce attesting witnesses can be detrimental. 3. Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act does not preclude a court from cancelling a gift deed established to be procured by fraudulent means. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal suit challenges a judgment cancelling a gift deed (Ex.A.1) executed by the plaintiff (Vella Saroja Devi) in favour of her son (Satya Ramendra Krishna). The plaintiff alleged the gift deed was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, while the son claimed it was a voluntary act of gifting. The dispute also involves a subsequent mortgage of the property by the son to the second defendant. Held: A. On Issue of Fraud and Misrepresentation: Majority View: The Court uphe

19. Sri Nalluri Ramesh Babu vs Union Bank of India on 29 September, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh29 Sept 2023

    Case Name: Sri Nalluri Ramesh Babu vs Union Bank of India on 29 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 29 September, 2023 Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana Subject: SARFAESI Act, Tenancy Rights, Transfer of Property Act, Lease Agreements, Secured Creditors Key Legal Propositions 1. A valid pre-existing tenancy is protected from disturbance by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, provided the lease is determined in accordance with Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. 2. Tenancies arising after mortgage creation but before a Section 13(2) notice under the SARFAESI Act must satisfy the conditions of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act. 3. Leases exceeding one year require registration under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act; unregistered leases are limited to a one-year term. Judgment Summary Background: The writ petition challenges the actions of Union Bank of India in alienating agricultural land mortgaged by borrowers, alleging violation of the SARFAESI Act and principles of natural justice. The petitioner claims to be a lessee of the borrowers under a 30-year lease agreement date

20. Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao vs Unknown on 03 January, 2023

    High Court of Andhra Pradesh3 Jan 2023

    Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Execution of a registered sale deed generally implies delivery of property as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. 2. A court may direct a lower court to expedite the disposal of a pending suit, particularly one from 2018. 3. Interlocutory applications are subject to the outcome of the main suit. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant filed a suit seeking cancellation of a registered sale deed and an interlocutory application for temporary injunction restraining interference with possession. The interlocutory application was dismissed, prompting this appeal. The core issue revolves around whether the sale deed constitutes valid delivery of possession. Held: A. On Validity of Sale Deed & Delivery of Possession: Majority View: The Court noted the contention that the sale deed was a sham and possession was not delivered. However, it observed that Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act stipulates that execution of a sale deed amounts to delivery of property. The Court did not delve into a detailed examination of the factual claim regarding sham transaction, deferring to the lower court’s

Search all 2,776 judgments →