Andhra Pradesh Court September 1959 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.
Vakati Venkatasubba Reddi Vs. Pelleti Pitchamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-1959
Reported in: AIR1960AP263
Munikanniah, J.1. The plaintiff who claimed to be entitled to a1/3rd share in the plaint B and C schedule properties did not succeed in establishing that he is a member of a composite family consisting of two Vakati families and one Pelleti family. Hence the appeal by the plaintiff.2. The relationship between the parties needs mention to explain their array in the suit. The 1st defendant is Pelleti Pitchamma, Her brothers were Vakati Venkatasubba Reddi and Subbaraghava Reddi. Their father wag Venkata Kumundara Reddi. The plaintiff is the son of Subbaraghnva Reddi who died in 1941. Venfcatasubba Reddi predeceased Subbaraghava Reddi leaving his wile Subbalakshmamma. Pitchamma (1st defendant) married Pelleti Muniswami Reddi, the son of Pelleti Venkata Narayana Reddi and Mahalakshmamma, who died in 1930. Pitcbamma had a son Munirami Reddi who died in 1939. Her daughter Muniamma is married to one Rami Reddi. Pitchamma's aunt Vengarnma i.e., Pelleti Venkata Narayana Reddi's sister, was marri...
Katam Virupakshiah and ors. Vs. Matam Sivalingaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-1959
Reported in: AIR1960AP540
ORDERKrishna Rao, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of the Court of the District Munsiffof Adoni refusing to allow the petitioners to sue in forma pauperis. The order was made under Order 33, Rule 7(3) of the Civil Procedure Code and was based on the learned District Munsiff's finding that the petitioners were in a position to raise the requisite court fee of Rs. 225 by giving their property as security and that the allegations in their petition do not show a cause of action. The learned District Munsiff also found that the petition is not bona fide; but it is conceded that this is not one of the grounds specified in Order 33, Rule 5, on which the petition could be rejected.In support of the revision, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the reasons given by the learned District Munsiff have nothing to do with the conclusions reached by him.2. The material facts may be briefly stated. The three petitioners are the minor sons and respondents 2 and 3 ...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Natakala Janakirama Chetty and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-01-1959
Reported in: [1959]10STC568(AP)
Krishna Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondents. The two respondents are the partners of a firm of registered dealers doing business in cloth at Chittoor. The charge against them was that they committed a breach of Clause (i) of Rule 45(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, read with Section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (VI of 1957) and were therefore punishable under Rule 64 of the said rules. The charge was based on the fact that on 26th August, 1957, when their shop was inspected by the Commercial Tax Officer (P.W. 1) and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (P.W. 2), it was found that they had not entered in their day book (exhibit P-7) (1) items 12 and 24 to 36 of the cloth purchased under a bill (exhibit P-4) dated 5th August, 1957; (2) all the items purchased under a bill (exhibit P-5) dated 22nd August, 1957 ; and (3) all the items purchased under a third bill (exhibit P-6) dated 10th August,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›