Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1955AP240
ORDER(1) This is a petition for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in A. S. No. 300 of 1950 on the file of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vizinagaram, and to quash the order therein.(2) The Inam Settlement Officer, Vijiawada, acting under S. 9 of Madras Act 26 of 1948 took action suo motu for determining whether Vaddimukkala Agraharam in Bapatla Taluk of Guntur District is 'an Inam Estate', as defined is S. 2 (7), Madras Estates Abolition Act. On a consideration of the material evidence before him the Inam Settlement Officer came to the conclusion that the Agraharam became an 'Estate' only by virtue of Act 18 of 1936 and that it is not an Inam Estate within the meaning of S. 2 (7), Madras Estates Abolition Act.(3) Against this order, the ryots preferred an appeal to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vizinagaram. The Tribunal held that no one portion of the village is an 'estate' within the meaning of S. 3 (2) (d) of Madras Act 1 of 1908 and much less an 'Inam Esta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1955AP174
Bhimasankaram, J.(1) This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of Rajagopalan J. of the Madras High Court in S. A. No. 1746 / 48. The learned Judge granted leave to both the appellant and the respondent before him to appeal against his decision. The respondent before us has therefore filed a Memorandum of Cross-objections.(2) The facts of the case may be briefly stated. The appellant and the respondent who were respectively the defendant and the plaintiff in O. S. No. 61 of 1945 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vishakapatnam, out of which the present appeal arises, jointly obtained a transfer of the decree in O. S. No. 34 of 1935 on the file of that court, under a registered deed of transfer dated 5.3.1938, for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/-. During the execution of the decree, an amount of nearly Rs. 1,500/- was deposited into the executing court by the judgment-debtors and at the time of this suit, there was still a considerable balance outstanding. The plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1955AP156; 1955CriLJ1028
Subba Rao, C.J.(1) This is a petition under Ss. 3 and 4 of Act 32 of 1952 for committing the respondents for contempt of Court. Respondent 1 is the District Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur, Respondent 2 is Personal Assistant to respondent 1 and Additional District Magistrate and respondent 3 is the acting Public Prosecutor, Guntur.(2) The circumstances under which this petition was filed may be briefly stated. The petitioner is a native of Sattanepalli village and worked as a Jamedar during the war. Thereafter he worked as Taluk Surveyor for some time and had been working temporarily as clerk at Guntur or Statane Palli in the Revenue offices. He filed a complaint for breach of trust of court properties against Sri Wahab Sahib, the then Stationary Sub Magistrate, Sattenepalli and others before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Guntur.It was transferred to the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Narasaraopet, who dismissed the same under S. 203, Criminal P. C. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1955AP165
Subba Rao, C.J.(1) This is Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order of the learned subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet, dismissing O. P. No. 1 of 1949, a petitiion filed for leave to sue in forma pauperis against respondents 32 to 36 on the ground that the petitioner has no cause of action against them.(2) The said O. P. was filed for leave to sue in froma pauperis for setting aside certain alienations made by the petitioner's father, of the joint family properties and for partition of the scheudle properties. In the petition, it is alleged that the alienations were not supported by consideration and were also made for purposes not binding on the family. The petition discloses that item 7, 8, 11 to 14, 16 to 18, 21 and 26 were alienated after the petitioner's birth, but items 22 to 25 were sold on 4-6-1928 and 3-7-1928 i.e., prior to the petitioner's birth. It is alleged in the petition that the father had another son, who was born in October 1928 and died in March 1930 and, therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1955AP229a; [1955]28ITR362(AP)
Subba Rao, C.J.(1)This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the Judgment of Balakrishna Ayya J., of the Madras High Court. The question raised is one of limitation and the following facts may be useful for appreciating it.(2) Veerina Venkatarathnam and some others filed O. S. No. 95 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsif's Courtof Rajamundry, to enforce a mortgage. On 7-10-1938, a preliminary decree was made therein. Final decree followed on 9-2-1940. On 30-1-1933, as the decree-holders made default in payment of income-tax, the Income-tax Officer issued a certificate to the Collector of East Godavari instanating to him that a sum of Rs.1,080-1-0 was due from the decree-holders and requesting him to recover the same under the provisions of S. 46(2), Indian Income-tax Act.Pursuant to the certificate, the Collector attached thed decree in O. S. No. 95 of 1938. He also requested the court to stay execution of the decree. On 4-7-1941, the Collector filked an execution petition for execut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1955AP172
(1) This appeal raises a simple question of law. The 1st repondent herein filed I. A. No. 461 of 1948 in O. S. No. 318 of 1939, District Munsif's Court, Repalle, on 5.7.1948, for the ascertainment of profits from the date of the plaint. The suit in which the application was filed was instituted in 1939 for partition and separate possession of joint family properties and the preliminary decree was passed on 23.8.1946. The final decree was passed on 31.8.1948. long after the application for the ascertainment of future profits was filed. The ground on which the District Munsif of Repalle dismissed the application was that the final decree had been passed by the time the application was taken up for hearing on 17.9.1948.On appeal, the Subordinate Judge of Tenali rightly held that the delay in the disposal of the application ought not to prejudice the 1st repondent herein in the determination of his legal rights. He followed the decision of Somayya J. in -- Reghava Mannadiar v. Theyunni Man...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1955AP215
1. This appeal raises a difficult question of law. The plaintiff is the apellant and the appeal is confined only to item 2 of the plaint schedule. The suit was filed for partition and separte possession of a 2/3rd share in the land. The plaintiff and defendant are sons of two, brothers Akkayya and Ramaswami. The defendant's father, Ramaswami, got himself divided from the joint family and took away his 1/4th share. The plaintiff's father died thereafter and as the plaintiff was unwilling to live jointly with the defendant, he called upon him to effect a partition of the properties and deliver to him his 2/3rd share.As there were crops on the land at the time, a letter makred as Ex. A-1 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. O. S. No. 318 of 1939 was filed by the plaintiff in the file of the District Munsif's Court, Repalle, for partition and separate possession of all the joint family properties. Item 2 of the plaint schedule in the present suit was included as item 8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1955AP116; [1955]28ITR220(AP)
Bhimasankaran, J . (1) This reference is made at the istance of this assessee and the question to be answered by in is formulated as follows : 'Whether the sum of Rs. 75,040/- is a receipt not from business but only of a casual and non-recurring nature exempt under S. 4(3)(vii), Income-tax Act ?'(2) Having regard to the nature of the question, it is necessary to state the material facts which have a bearing on the character of the transaction leading to the receipt by the assessee of the sum in question. The assessee is a trader interested in several lines of business. He does business in timber, tiles, furniture, ironware and hardware, some in partnership with others and some entirely on his own. He also owns seagoing schooners and other boats jointly with others which are plied for transaport of cargo as well as passengers. He belongs to a family of bankers and traders, he and his brothers having been described by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax as being the foremo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1955AP129
Chandra Reddy, J . (1) I agree with the conclusions reached by my learned brother that these revision cases should be dismissed. But having regard to the nature of the questions raised, I would like to give my reasons in support of it. The necessary facts are stated in his Judgment and therefore not necessary to repeat them.(2) In these cases, the constitutionality of the explanation added to S. 2 (h) , Madras General Salex Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) by Act 25 of 1947 is put in issue. The amendment came into force on 1.1.1948. Section 2 (h) of the Act defines a sale with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions as 'every transfer of the property in goods by one person to another in the course of trade or business for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration, and includes also a transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a worked contract, but does not include a mortgage by hypothecation, charge or pledge'.The addition to this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1955AP161; 1955CriLJ1152
Subba Rao, C.J.(1) The three accused were convicted by the Court of Session, Cuddappah Division, under S. 302 read with S. 34, Penal Code and also under S. 392 read with S. 34, Penal Code and sentenced to death.(2) One Yedoti Subbamma, daughter of Kandula Nagayya of Kandulvaripalle village was brutally murdered on 11-2-1954, near the vanka lying to were of Kumarapalle village. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Subbamma was the only daughter of Kandula Nagayya, that there were disputes between the deceased and her brother Pedayya and his wife Sitamma and that at the instigation of Sitamma, the three accused who were hired assissins, waylaid the deceased near the vanka and killed her. According to the Prosecution, the murder was committed in the following way. The three accused having been pre-informed of the movements of the deceased, took attrack and awaited the deceased near the aforesaid vanka. When the deceased came that way, accused 3 pelted a stone of the sixe of a ...
Tag this Judgment!