Tippa Reddy Vs. Gondamma

Tippa Reddy vs Gondamma

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Sep 18, 1951

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/424188

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/424188
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: Shripatrao, J.
Decided On: Sep 18, 1951
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (59 OF 1988)Section 149 (2): [V. Gopala Gowda & Jawad Rahim, JJ] Insurers entitlement to defend the action Joint appeal by insured and insurer - Held, The language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of Section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. It shows that w...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Tippa Reddy

Respondent

Gondamma

Legal References

Reported In: 1952CriLJ567

Excerpt

.....the act to seek compensation under section 166 of the act resulting in award passed by the tribunal. therefore, the insured and the insurer have no escape but to discharge the said award as directed. undisputedly, in this case as deduced for proved facts, the vehicle in question was not properly maintained by the owner and despite faulty brake system, the claimant had undertaken the hazardous journey to his peril at the behest of and at the instruction of the owner. the owner is therefore, tortfeasor. section 168: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers limit of liability - held, it is well settled that the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation can be statutory or contractual. is for the insurance company to show that the insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. that issue was neither raised before the tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under section 149 (1) of the act. where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the vehicle with mechanical defects, the owner would be the tortfeasor and the claimant can maintain a petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the act, instead of seeking compensation under the workmens compensation act. on facts, held, the material evidence on record, particularly, with regard to the income of the claimant, his age, medical evidence and the evidence relating to pecuniary loss has not been considered by the tribunal in the correct perspective, which has resulted in passing of the impugned award, disproportionate to the pecuniary loss and the loss of future income of the victim. the settled principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye......ordershripatrao, j.1. this is a revision petition against the order of the munsiff at chincholi, dated 4.7.1951.2. the facts necessary in the revision are that gondamma, respondent before me filed a petition in the lower court stating that there was a dispute between the parties under section 148h criminal p.c. corresponding to section 145, criminal p.c., which was decided on 24th isfandar 1350 f. (1941 ad) on the basis of a compromise; that as mentioned in the compromise the case was decided by the criminal court on the said date and that subsequently she got possession of survey number 163. she alleges that she was in possession and enjoyment of that survey number for some time, that) during the police action (which took place in 1948) the opposite party tippa reddy dispossessed her and that therefore she should be given possession. the present petitioner contested the petition on the ground that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. the lower court came to the conclusion that it had inherent powers under section 581(a) criminal p.c., to pass necessary orders.3. the question to be decided is whether the criminal court has any jurisdiction under the circumstances narrated by the respondent gondamma. mr. aliuddin ansari, the learned advocate for the respondent argues that the case which was decided in 1941 a.d. referred to above was decided under section 145, clause (5), criminal p.c., that it should be considered to be still pending and that the present petition should be regarded as a prayer for carrying out the order passed in 1941 by the magistrate. it is difficult to agree with his argument. gondamma herself has stated in her petition that in consequence of the said criminal proceedings of 1941 possession was delivered to her, that she was in enjoyment of the land in question till the police action for about 6 or 7 years and that she was dispossessed during police action. thus, it is clear that the question of executing the order passed.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Shripatrao, J.

1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Munsiff at Chincholi, dated 4.7.1951.

2. The facts necessary in the revision are that Gondamma, respondent before me filed a petition in the lower Court stating that there was a dispute between the parties under Section 148H Criminal P.C. corresponding to Section 145, Criminal P.C., which was decided on 24th Isfandar 1350 F. (1941 AD) on the basis of a compromise; that as mentioned in the compromise the case was decided by the criminal Court on the said date and that subsequently she got possession of survey number 163. She alleges that she was in possession and enjoyment of that survey number for some time, that) during the Police Action (which took place in 1948) the opposite party Tippa Reddy dispossessed her and that therefore she should be given possession. The present petitioner contested the petition on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The lower Court came to the conclusion that it had inherent powers under Section 581(A) Criminal P.C., to pass necessary orders.

3. The question to be decided is whether the Criminal Court has any jurisdiction under the circumstances narrated by the respondent Gondamma. Mr. Aliuddin Ansari, the learned Advocate for the respondent argues that the case which was decided in 1941 A.D. referred to above was decided under Section 145, Clause (5), Criminal P.C., that it should be considered to be still pending and that the present petition should be regarded as a prayer for carrying out the order passed in 1941 by the Magistrate. It is difficult to agree with his argument. Gondamma herself has stated in her petition that in consequence of the said criminal proceedings of 1941 possession was delivered to her, that she was in enjoyment of the land in question till the Police Action for about 6 or 7 years and that she was dispossessed during Police Action. Thus, it is clear that the question of executing the order passed by the Magistrate in 1941 does not arise. Mr. Aliuddin Ansari refers to the words of Sub-section (5) namely, that when the Court is satisfied that no dispute exists the Magistrate shall stay further proceedings and cancel his order passed under Section 145, Clause (1), I. Criminal P.C. It is well settled that when an order under Sub-section (5) is passed, it is passed on the assumption that in the absence of dispute the Criminal Court bas ceased to exercise its jurisdiction. The said Sub-section protects the initial order passed by the Magistrate under Sub-section (1) to this extent that because of the fact that subsequently parties came to a compromise and satisfied the Court that no dispute existed, the initial order of the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction should not be called in question. But passing of an order under Sub-section (5) is tantamount to the fact that there is no further ground for exercising criminal jurisdiction of the Court. When that is the position the present petition by Gondamma cannot be entertained by the Magistrate as he has ceased to exercise any criminal jurisdiction in the matter, it Is clear that in the absence of any criminal jurisdiction, the question of exercising inherent rights under Section 561(A) does not arise. I, therefore, set aside the order of the lower Court and dismiss the petition of Gondamma filed by her on 27.2.1951. She may have recourse to such legal remedy as is warranted by law. Parties to bear their own costs at this revision.

Same Parties Tippa Reddy vs Gondamma Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Shripatrao, J.

Criminal