Andhra Pradesh Court July 1958 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.
Mudragada Satyanarayana Vs. Jammi Veerraju and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP79
Manohar Pershad, J.1. Respondent No.7, Viramma, transferred the suit lands to the appellant through a sale deed, dated 19-3-1950. Respondents 1 to 6 filed a suit O.S. 10 of 1950 in the District Court of East Godavary at Rajahmundry for declaration that the sale deed Ex. B-2 dated 19-3-1950 executed by respondent 1 in favour of the appellant was not valid and binding on them. This suit of the respondents has been decreed by the Principal Subordinate Judge tHE alienee has now come up in appeal.2. The brief facts are: One Jammi Rayudu, the original ancestor of the plaintiff-respondents 1 to 6's family had three sons, Baliah, Narsiah and Appanna. Baliah had three sons by name Rayudu, father of respondents 1 to 4, Viraswamy, father of respondents 5 and 6 and Somanna, 7th plaintiff and 6th respondent herein. Jammi Rayudu acquired extensive lands including the suit lands.On the death of Rayudu, the suit lands and other remaining properties devolved on his three- sons, Balaiah, Narsiah, and Ap...
Baddi Reddi Bulliraju Vs. Kedam Surya Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP670
Umamaheswaram, J. 1. The simple question that arises for decision in the appeal is whether it will be for the welfare of the minor daughter to return to the custody at her lather, the appellant herein. To appreciate this question, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts. 2. The appellant herein married Venkata Kalua-vati in 1945 and the minor daughter Swayamprabha alias Papa was born in 1947. The appellant and his wife lived amicably till 1947. According to the respondent, the maternal grand-father, the appel-tant wanted the respondent to purchase a house in his name and as he refused to do so, his wife and child were left with him in 1948 or 1949. It is common ground that from 1948 or 1949, both Venkata Ratnavati and her minor daughter were living with the respondent. The appellant admitted that he did not send a pie to the minor girl for her maintenance. 3. The exact date of the death of Venkata Ratnavati is in dispute between the parties. The appellant stated in his examinat...
Edara Venkaiah and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Income-tax Department, H ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP508
ORDERJaganmohan Reddy, J. 1. This Writ petition seeks to have the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad, passed in revision under Section 33A of the Income-tax Act, quashed and prays for suitable directions that the amounts of Rs. 8,449/- for 1947-48 and Rs. 15,667/- for 1948-49 be refunded or Otherwise adjusted. 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of Messrs, Rama and Co., a firm of Printers and Publishers having its Head Office at Eluru and branch offices at Guntur, Rajahmundry and Bhimavaram. He was assessed for the year 1947-48 on 20-3-1951 on a taxable income of Rs. 29,061/- and for 1948-49 on 23-11-1951 on a taxable income of Rs. 34,425/-. Against both these assessments he filed appeals before the Appellate Asst. Commissioner, Bezwada and they were disposed of on 26-6-53 and 28-6-1953 respectively. In the appeal pertaining to 1947-48 the total income was reduced by Rs. 8,887/- and with respect to 1948-49 the total income was reduced by Rs. 18,368/- and the tax was re...
Cherukuri Kutumbayya Vs. the Municipal Council, Vijayawada
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP1
P. Chandra Reddy, C. J.1. The interpretation of Section 81 of the District Municipalities Act is involved in this second appeal. The question is whether the assessment of property tax on the appellant's agricultural lands within the municipal limits of Vijayawada by the respondent under Section 81(2) instead of Section 81(4), of the District Municipalities Act, is ultra vires the powers of the Municipality.2. The appellant owns Ac. 3-94 cents of land within the municipal limits of Vijayawada. For the years 1947-48, 1948-49, and 1949-50 the Municipality levied property tax on these lands at the rate of Rs. 86/- per annum, proceeding under Section 81(2) of the District Municipalities Act, while the tax previously paid was Rs. 4/- per year. The appellant, disputing the right of the Municipality to make the levy under Section 81(2), refused to comply with the demand to pay the enhanced tax.3. This led the Municipality to raise a suit for recovery of the tax of Rs. 258-3-0 for the three yea...
Ramani Raji Moholi Vs. Todanpuri Maniah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP103
Kumarayya, J.1. This Second appeal arises out of a money suit brought by Ramuniraja Mouli against Thodapnure Manayya which was decreed in part by the trial court but was wholly dismissed by the Appellate Court. Plaintiff's case was that he and the defendant are traders, that the detendant's father and thereafter the defendant himself had money dealings with him and that as a result of accounting a sum of Rs. 4,5247-was found due which the defendant in spite of demand failed to pay.The defendant admitted that there were dealings between his father and the plaintiff's firm but denied his liability to any extent and raised several objections as to the maintainability of the suit. His objections are that as there were three partners in the plaintiffs firm the suit by the plaintiff alone is not maintainable, that it was barred by limitation and that in any event he is not entitled to interest as there was no agreement in that behalf.Though the suit as brought related to several items, havin...
State of Andhra (Now Andhra Pradesh) Vs. Penumecha Somaraju and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP165
P. Chandra Reddy C. J.1. These appeals raise a question bearing on the interpretation of Section 82 of the Code of Civil Proce- dure. The suits out of which these appeals arise were filed against the appellant i. e., the then Government of Madras represented by the District Collector of East Godavary for a refund of surcharge amounts levied from the Government. While all suits were decreed no time for satisfaction of the decrees was specified in them. Since the decrees were not discharged, the decre-holders filed execution petitions. The executing court in accordance with the terms of Section 82 reported the case for the orders of the State Government Within a short space of time, the judgment-debtor deposited the decretal amount including costs of suits but not costs of the execution petitions. Later on, the decree-holders filed the present execution petitions for costs of the E. Ps. 2. These were resisted by the Government i. e. the appellant on the objection that they were not entit...
K. Kumaraswami Kumandan and Bros. Vs. Premier Electric Co.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP3
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The constitutionality of the Madras Civil and Village Courts (Amendment) Act, 1951 (Act XVI of J951) which amended Section 28 of the Civil Courts Act (Act III of 1873) substituting the words 'two thousand rupees' for 'rupees one thousand' is put in issue in the revision petition. Its validity was questioned by way of defence in S. C. 192 of 1056 brought by the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Visakhapatnarn. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the point whether the State Government could enhance the Small Cause jurisdiction of a Subordinate Judge's Court from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 2,000 may be referred to the High Court. The Subordinate Judge himself decided the point against the petitioner on a construction of the relevant provisions of law.2. Aggrieved by that order, the defendant preferred the present C. R. P. When it came up for hearing before Justice Ranganatham Chetty, he thought that...
Haji Mohamad JamaluddIn Brothers Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Owning Centr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP84
ORDERQamar Hasan, J.1. The firm of Lal Brothers through a Railway Receipt dated 10-10-1953 despatched from Aligarh two cases of locks with keys to Muhammad Jamaluddin and brothers. The consignment) reached Secunderabad, on 9-11-1953. The consignee, however, received the Railway Receipt on 24-12-1953. On the succeeding day, the carting agent of the consignee, P. W. 2 approached the clerk concerned to take delivery of the consignment but was called upon to pay the freight and wharfage charges due on that date.He, however, was asked to come next day. On that date he was told that no delivery could be effected since the consignments were missing. On 28-12-1953 the consignee, petitioner herein, addressed a notice to the Claims Superintendent demanding Rs. 333-3-0 as damages for the loss of .the locks. The Claims Superintendent through his letter dated 30-1-1954 disowned every liability by replying-'My inquiries reveal that the above consignment was received at Secunderabad en 9-11-1953 and ...
Lakshmayya Naidu P. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ571AP
1. The petitioner herein is the manager of a rice mill at Rajampet known as Sri Seetharamanjaneya Rice Mill which is admittedly a factory within the meaning of S. 2(m)(1) of the Factories Act of 1948. The petitioner was convicted for contravening S. 63 of the Factories Act in that he allowed nine adult male workers to carry on work in the factory on 23 June 1956 beyond time. The Chief Inspector of Factories P.W. 1., inspected this factory on that day at 8-20 p.m. and found the nine adult workers working in the factory. The petitioner was accordingly charged under S. 92 of the Factories Act, for contravention of S. 63 thereof, by allowing 9 workers to work beyond the usual time fixed.2. The petitioner contends that he was only taking work from these workmen form 7-45 p.m. to 8-20 p.m. as a special case in order to complete the rice-hulling work undertaken on behalf of D.W. 2.3. The simple point for consideration is, whether the petitioner has committed any offence, and if so, under what...
In Re: P. Lakshmaiah Naidu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1959AP536; 1959CriLJ1145
ORDERSanjeeva Row Nayudu, J.1. The petitioner herein is the manager of a rice mill at Rajampet known as Sri Seetharamanjaneya Rice Mill which is admittedly a factory within the meaning of Section 2(m)(1) of the Factories Act of 1948. The petitioner was convicted for contravening Section 63 of the Factories Act in that he allowed nine adult male workers to carry on work in the factory on 23-6-1956 beyond time. The Chief Inspector of Factories, P.W. 1, inspected this factory on that day at 8-20 P.M, and found the nine adult workers working in the factory. The petitioner was accordingly charged under Section 92 of the Factories Act, for contravention of Section 63 thereof, by allowing 9 workers to work beyond the usual time fixed.2. The petitioner contends that he was only taking work from these workmen from 7-45 p.m. to 8-20 p.m. as a special case in order to complete the rice hulling work undertaken on behalf of D.W. 2.3. The simple point for consideration is, whether the petitioner has...