Andhra Pradesh Court November 1954 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Addanki Ramanamma Vs. Ramavarapu Anthamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-1954
Reported in: AIR1955AP199
(1) This appeal raises an interesting question of law. The respondent herein obtained a decree against the appellant's vendor for an injunction restraining him from interfering with her right to drain off water through his lands. The appellant purchaed the property after the passing of the decree.Two questions are raised by Sri B. V. Ramanarasu the learned Advocate for the appellant; (i) that the decree for injunction passed as against the vendor, being personal, cannot be enforced against her; (ii) that both the Courts below erred in holding that the terms of S. 52, Transfer of Property Act apply and that his client is not affected by lis pendens.(2) In support of his first contention, he relied upon the decision in -- 'Dahyabhai v. Bapalal', 26 Bom 140 (A), Jenkins C. J. in delivering the judgment of the Bench held that the purchaser of the land in execution of a decree was not bound on the ground that the injunction does not run with the land and the decision in -- 'Attorney General...
V. Nagabhushanam and ors. Vs. V. Nagendramma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955AP181; 1955CriLJ1233
ORDER(1) The two petitioners have been convicted, the first under S. 494, Penal Code, and the second under S. 4 (4) of the Madras Act (6 of 1949) and sentenced to regorous imprisonment of 6 months and to fine of Rs. 200/- with a default rigorous imprisonment of six weeks respectively.(2) A complain was filed by the wife of the 1st accused that during the subsistence of her marriage with him he had taken a second wife, the daughter of the 3rd accused. The 2nd wife was impleaded as the 2nd accussed. The charge against the 1st and 2nd accused was one under S. 494, Penal Code. while that against the 3rd accused, that is, the 2nd petitioner, was one under S. 4 (4) of Madras Act (6 of 1949).(3) The defence of the accused was that the 2nd marriage had not taken place as alleged by the prosecution and that, in any event, as the marriage with the complainant was dissolved, the 1st accused was competent to marry a second time and therefore no offence was committed by any of the accused. A plea w...
Sabbarapu Venkanna Vs. Pothula Simhachalam and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955AP227; 1955CriLJ1316
ORDER(1) This Revision case is against the order of acquittal passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Peddapuram.(2) A complaint was filed by the petitioner against four persons under S. 494, Penal Code, read with S. 4 (2) of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act (VI of 1949) on the allegations taht the first accused took a second wife while his marriage with the complainant's daughter was subsisting, that the second wife is the daughter of the 4th accused and that the accused 2 to 4 actually assisted the 1st accused in committing this offence. A number of witnesses were examined for the prosecution to prove both the marriages.(3) The main plea of the accused was that the complaint was incompetent in that it offended against the provisions of S. 198, Criminal P. C., Agreeing with this objection, the lower court acquitted all the accused. This revision is directed against that Order. (4) The main point for consideration in this case is whether the view of the Sub-Divisio...
In Re: Venkatasubba Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-1954
Reported in: AIR1955AP96; 1955CriLJ779
ORDER(1) The petitioners in this case seek to have the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Executive), Madanapalle, under S. 117(3), Criminal P. C., revised.(2) On information laid before him by the Police that the petitioners were likely to commit a breach of the peace, and disturb the public tranquillity, and also do wrongful acts which might occasion a breach of the peace, or public tranquillity, the Magistrate issued an order under S. 112, Criminal P. C. As a part of it, he also directed the petitioners to execute interin bonds as he considered that immediate measures were necessary for the prevention of the breach of the peace or public tranquillity. It is this order that is under revision.(3) It is urged by Mr. Bhujanga Rao in support of this Revision Case that a Magistrate issuing an order under S. 112, Criminal P. C., cannot pass an order under S. 117(3), Criminal P. C., before the enquiry starts, under sub-s. (1) of S. 117, Criminal P. C. There is substance in this ...
Pulavarthi Sreeramamurthi Vs. Pulavarthi Lakshmikantham and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-1954
Reported in: AIR1955AP207
(1) This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Eluru, in I. A. No. 196 of 1953, in O. S. No. 53 of 1952 dismissing an application filed by the petitioner to direct the medical examination of respondent 1, as to whether she had become enceinte and given birth to a child at any time. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, respondent 1 for partition and recovery of a one-third share of the suit properties, on the ground, that her husband died divided from his brothers, the petitioner and respondent. 2 herein.Alternatively, she prayed that, if the partition was found to be not true, she was entitled to a one-third share in the non-agricultural properties and for maintenance. It was contended by the petitioner that the plaintiff had, given birth to a child subsequent to her husband's death and being unchaste, she was not entitled to recover any maintenance. Issue 8 was raised in regard to the question of respondent 1's chastity.(2) The present appli...
Valluri Nagachari Vs. Chittabhathina Subbamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-1954
Reported in: AIR1955AP114
(1) The original promissory note was executed in favour of Parareddy, the manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his two sons Seshareddy & Subba Reddy. There was a partition suit & the promissory note was allotted to the share of Sesha Reddy. The amount due under the promissory note executed in favour of Sesha Reddy was a sum of Rs. 254-11-0. The application for scaling down the decree debt was ordered by the District Munsif. He scaled down the amount to the principal amount due under the pronote executed in favour of Perireddy, i.e., Rs. 185--3--9 munus Rs. 60/- being the payment made on 4.7.1929, with interest at 61/2 per cent, per annum. On appeal, the appellate Judge following the decision of Subba Rao J., reported in -- 'Hanumayya v. Nayudamma', 1951-2 Mad LJ 400 (A), held that the debt should be traced only to Ex. A-1 viz., the pronote executed in favour of Sesha Reddy and modified the order accoridngly.(2) The contention that is raised before me is that the decisi...
Mathuri Suryanjaneyalu Vs. Thummalasetto Venkateswarlu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-04-1954
Reported in: AIR1955AP203
(1) This is an appeal filed by defendant 1 as against the order of remand passed by the Subordinate Judge of Tenali in Appeal Suit No. 113 of 1949.(2) The suit was dismissed by the District Munsif of Repalle on the ground that it was not maintainable and that the remedy of the plaintiff was only by an application under S. 47, Civil P. C. For the purpose of appreciating the contention based on S. 47, Civil P. C., it is sufficient to set out a few relevant facts.(3) Venkateswarlu, respondent 1 herein purchased an undivided 2/3rd share of the suit properties in execution of a money-decree as against the appellant and his sons for Rs. 518/- on 29-6-1936. The sale was confirmed on 31.7.1936, and though he applied for delivery on 28.6.1939, it was dismissed as not pressed. The present suit is for recovery of possession of 3 acres 5 cents out of the schedule land or in the alternative for partition and recovery of possession of 2/3rd share of the plaint schedule land.(4) The main contention a...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Shaik Dastagiri
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-03-1954
Reported in: 1957CriLJ954
ORDERChandra Reddy, J.1. The accused was charged before the Sub-Magistrate, Kamalapuram under Sections 4-A and 4(1)(b) of the Madras Prohibition Act. The case against him was that he was found in a state of drunkenness and was also distilling I. D. Arrack. In support of the prosecution case two witnesses were examined, P.W. 1, the Prohibition Sub-Inspector and P.W. 2, the Sub-Inspector of the Striking Force. The accused, while admitting that he was found in a state of drunkenness, denied that he was distilling ID Arrack at; the scene of offence. The Magistrate acquitted him under Section 4(1)(b) of the Madras Prohibition Act, as in his opinion it was not made out beyond reasonable doubt that he was manufacturing illicit arrack. He convicted him under Section 4-A of the Madras Prohibition Act having regard to his admission, But he passed no sentence on the accused as he thought that 'the accused was truthful from the beginning to the extent of his drunkenness and also by reason of the f...
In Re: Rushingappa and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-02-1954
Reported in: AIR1955AP105
(1) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Anantapur convicting the appellants under S. 304, part 2, Penal Code, and sentencing them to rivorous imprisonment for 7 years each.(2) The appellants and two others were charged with the murder of one Pasulodu who was no other than the brother of the first accused. Accused 1 and 4 were acquitted as their participation had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, while accused 2 and 3 (who are the appellants) have been convicted and setnenced as stated above.(3) The prosecution case may be briefly stated: P. W. 1, the deceased and the first accused constituted members of a joint family. the deceased and P. W. 1 migrated to Mysore State to eke out their livelihood. P. W. 1 returned to the village two years before the occurrence, while the deceased came back a few months before. The deceased and P. W. 1 made a joint demand on the first accused for division and separate possession of their share. The first accused having ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›