Andhra Pradesh Court September 1954 Judgments
Mohd. Suleman Vs. the State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ956
ORDER1. Heard arguments of the parties. We are of the opinion that the trial in this case has been vitiated on account of material irregularity.The revision petitioner was charged Under Section 409, IPC for criminal misappropriation. The evidence for the prosecution was recorded by the Magistrate after which the Magistrate asked the accused whether he wishes to cross-examine the witnesses. The accused stated that he would do so and requested for time to engage a pleader for that purpose. The Magistrate refused to give time and closed the ease and decided the same on merits.The learned Counsel for revision petitioner argues that Under Section 256, Cr.PC it was the duty of the Magistrate to grant the accused an adjournment so that the witnesses may be cross-examined at the next hearing of the case. We are of the opinion that there is much force in the argument. The learned Government Advocate Shri K. Srinivasa Raghava Chari argues that Under Section 256 if the Magistrate for reasons to b...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sowrayya and Brothers Ltd. Vs. Sundaragiri Abdul Khader Saheb
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955AP29
(1) The question in this Second Appeal is whether a suit for the collection of cartstand fees would lie in a Civil Court.(2) The facts are simple. The Gurazala Panchayat Board has provided a stand for the stopping of buses and lorries. The right to collect fees from the owners of the said vehicles was auctioned. The plaintiff was the highest bidder for the years 1946-47 and 1947-48 and he thus became entitled to collect fees from the buses and lorries stopping in the cart-stand. The defendant, who was plying one lorry and six buses, used the cart-stand during that period. The suit was filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 482-8-0 as the fees due from him.(3) The defendant, inter alia, contended that the suit was not maintainable as the Madras Local Board's Act (Act XIV of 1920) provided the machinery for the collection of such fees. Both the courts negatived the said contention. Hence the appeal.(4) The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that S. 186 provides the machinery for...
Tag this Judgment!Eluri Krishnamurthy and ors. Vs. Eluri Suryakantamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955AP5
(1)The defendants are appellants, O. S. No. 63 of 1945 was filed by the respondent herein on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Masulipatam, for recovery of maintenance, past and future, and for other incidental reliefs.Her case was that her deceased husband Narsimha Rao and appellants were brothers, that her husband died about 25 years ago soon after her marriage and that no maintenance whatsoever was provded by the appellants to her.She alleged that the net income realised to the family of the defendants was not less than Rs.5,000/- a year and that she was entitled to claim future maintenance at the rate of Rs.50/- per mensem. So far as the past maintenance was concerned, she limited her claim to the sum of Rs.300.- a year for a period of 12 years. She also prayed that provision might be made for cattle, utensils and residence.(2) The 4th defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by his brothers i.e., defendant's 1 to 3. He contended that after the death of the...
Tag this Judgment!State of Hyderabad Vs. K.B. Swami Gupta
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-23-1954
Reported in: 1955CriLJ1588
Palnitkar, J.1. This is criminal appeal No. 48/6/1954. The City Criminal Court, Division III, by judgment dated 7-1-1954, acquitted the respondent of an offence Under Sections 78 and 112, Hyderabad Motor Vehicles Act. Hence this appeal. We have heard the arguments of the learned Senior Government Advocate. Shri Mohd. Mirza. for the State and that of the learned advocate, Shri J. V. Narainga Rao, for the respondent.2. We have perused the judgment. It appears that the respondent was driving a motor-car and proceeding from Troop Bazar side to Putli Bawli via old Residency Gate. At the traffic post just before the gate, the Police Officer doing traffic duty stopped the respondent but he did not obey the signal and proceeded towards Putli Bawli. This fact has been deposed to by three Police witnesses. In rebuttal the defence witness has deposed that the signal was obeyed and the Police Officer doing the traffic duty was rude to the respondent. We are of the opinion that the evidence led by ...
Tag this Judgment!Khagum Khan and anr. Vs. Mohamed Ali Sahib and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1955AP209
(1) These three appeals arise out of three connected suits O. S. Nos. 233, 151 and 231 of 1946 on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Cuddappah. (2) The suits relate to the disputes between the officer holders of the mosque called Ahle Hadiz mosque in Mandi Sydumiah Street, Cuddappah Town. This mosque was primarily intended to serve the nees of the members of the Ahle Hadiz sect resident in the said town. In course of time, the plaint schedule lands were endowed to the mosque. Muhammad Abdulla Saheb and Abdul Sattar have been the joint mutawallis of the mosque for about 45 years. Abdulla Saheb was the son and Abdul Sattar was the son-in-law of one Haji Shaick Mohideen Saheb.Abdulla Saheb died in the year 1939. After the death of Abdulla Saheb disputes arose between Muhammad Ali Saheb and his brother Abdul Sattar, each claiming to be the sole mutawalli. This dispute led to criminal proceedings before the Magistrate's Court, Cuddappah. The court decided that Abdul Sattar was en...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Valluru Narayana Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1954
Reported in: AIR1955AP48; 1955CriLJ383
ORDER(1) This is a petition is revision against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cuddappah, who, while acting under S. 346(2), Criminal P. C., decided to proceed with the case as a preliminary register case. The circumstances giving rise to this case are these :(2) A charge sheet was filed before the Staionary Sub-Magistrate, Pulivendla, against 14 persons under Ss. 147, 148, 324, 326 and 307, Penal Code, read with S. 149, Penal Code, and S. 19(f). Arms Act. The accused are said to have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of attacking and killing the members of the opposite side, some of them armed with unlicensed guns and others with stones, and in prosecution of this common object, caused some pallet injuries to some members of the prosecution party.The Magistrate thought that the material on record did not warrant a trial for an offence under S. 307, Penal Code, that the evidence pointed only to offences some of which are of a first class na...
Tag this Judgment!Samudrala Srinivasacharyulu Vs. Marripati Hanumantha Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1954
Reported in: AIR1955AP10
(1) The question in the second appeal is whether S. 66, Civil P. C., is bar to the maintainability of the suit.(2) The plaintiff Hanumantha Rao, Ramakrishna Rao and the 3rd defendant are brothers Defendants 4 to 6 are the undivided sons of the plaintiff and his two brothers. The 3rd defendant, the youngest of thebrothers, became indebted to the Krishna Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Masulipatam, as a surety, the principal debtor being Velagapudi Ranga Rao, who is the plaintiff's son-in-law. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed an award No. 1770 of 1940 against the 3rd defendant and Velagapudi Ranga Rao. The award was sought to be executed in e. P. No. 30/1941-42 and the undivided 1/3 share of the 3rd defendant along with the other items was brought to sale. At that stage, it was arrangeed between the brothers and the 2nd defendant that the 2nd defendant should advance the necessary funds and liquidate the debts of the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant and subsequently recoup...
Tag this Judgment!Addanki Venkata Rukminiamma Vs. Chilakamarthi Krishnamurthy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-1954
Reported in: AIR1955AP205
ORDER(1) This application is filed by respondent 1 in Appeal No. 36 of 1954 to direct the appellant to furnish security for costs awarded in the trial Court and for costs to be incurred in the High Court.(2) The provision of law that governs the application is O. 41, R. 10, Civil P. C. which runs in the following terms :'The appellate court may, in its discretion, either before the respondent is called upon to appear and answer or atterwards on the application of the respondent, demand from the appellant accruity for the costs of the appeal, or of the orginal suit, or of both. Provided that the Court shall demand such security in all cases in which the appellant is residing out of India, and is not possessed of any sufficient immoveable property within India other than the property (if any) to which the appeal relates.'(3) The respondent herein filed O. S. No. 2 of 1952 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Ongole for a declaration of his title to the plaint 'A' Schedule prop...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Manikonda Satyanarayana
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1954
Reported in: AIR1955AP44; 1955CriLJ353
ORDER(1) This is a reference by the District Magistrate of West Godavari under the following circumstances. A charge sheet was filed against one Manikonda Satyanarayana by the Sub-Inspector of Railway Police, Rajamundry under S. 235, para (2) and S. 239, Indian Penal Code, before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Kovvur. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate took the case on file as a P. R. case and enquired into it. Finding that the evidence did not disclose an offence under S. 235(2), Indian Penal Code, he submitted the proceeding to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kovvur under S. 346(1). Criminal P. C. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate acted on the evidence already recorded and framed a charge instead of having a de novo trial.(2) It is pointed out by the District Magistrate taht this procedure is unwarranted and that a Magistrate acting under sub-s. (2) of S. 346, Criminal P. C., has to try the case from the beginning. It looks to me that the procedure adopted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is i...
Tag this Judgment!Maddi Sudarsanam and ors. Vs. Borogu Viswanadham Brothers and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-17-1954
Reported in: AIR1955AP12
(1) The question in this Second Appeal is whether S. 69 (2), Partnership Act, 1932 is a bar to the maintainability of the suit.(2) The facts giving rise to the said question of law may be stated: A firm known as 'Burugu Viswanadhan Bros.' consisting of five persons viz., Burugu Mahadevudu, his brother Burugu veerayya, Parripati Venkatarathnam, and his two brother Subrahmanyam and Venkata Subba Rao as partners was formed in 1925. They executed a registered agreement on 8-6-1925 setting out the terms and conditions of the partnership. The Partnership Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force in 1932. The firm of Burugu Viswanadham Bros. consisting of those partnerss was registered under the Act in 1933. The names of the said five partners are shown in the Register of Firms as partners of the firm. Burugu Veerayya died on 17-7-39.Parripati Venkatarathnam and his two brothers became divided on 11-11-1939. Under the partition the interests of the three brothers in the assets ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »