Andhra Pradesh Court October 1960 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.
Patchamatla Venkata Subbayamma Vs. Kocherlapati Rajayya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-1960
Reported in: AIR1962AP90
ORDER(1) This is a petition to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram in O. S. No. 33 of 1957 on his file.(2)The relevant facts are briefly as follows:The petitioner is the first defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 33 of 1957. Plaintiff filed that suit for possession of plaint A and B schedule properties, after ejecting the defendants there from and for future profits. After the plaint had been presented, an objection had been taken by the office that the valution of the properties was low. There upon, the plaintiff produced registered sale deeds showing a valution between Rs. 500/ to Rs. 1000/ per acre. The plaintiff also represented that the Village Munsif was one of the defendants in the suit and as such, she could not secure certificates of the village officers with regard to the valution of the suit properties. The Head Ministerial Officer put upan office note dated 20-1-1957 to this effect before the predecessor of the learned Subordinate Jud...
Chintalapati Varahalamma Vs. Gavva Nallayya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP432
Ramachandra Rao, J.1. In this appeal, the plaintiff whose claim formesne profits has been negatived for the major portion is the appellant.2. The facts leading up to the present appeal are briefly as follows: The plaintiff is the owner of certain lands, wet and dry, of the extent of 16 acres in Kailasapatnam agraharam withinthe Visakhapatnam district. She filed a suit O. S. No. 90 of 1943 on the file of the court of the District Munsif of Yellamanchiji for the ejectment of the defendants from the suit land, for recovery of possession thereof with arrears of rent and for future mesne profits. The claim was laid on the footing that the plaintiff is the owner of the property, which she leased out to the defendants as yearly tenants.The lease was terminated by a registered notice to the 1st defendant on 30-12-1941 and that is how the plaintiff claimed the relief for possession. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on the 21st of August, 1944 negativingthe contention of the defen...
Chodavarapu Satyanarayana Being Minor Represented by Next Friend Vinna ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP446
Seshachalapati, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam, in O.S. No. 165 of 1952. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are briefly these :2. On hehalf of a minor, Chodavarapu Venkata Satyanarayana his next friend, one Vinnakota Rajagopalarao instituted the present suit in forma pauperis in the year 1949 praying first for the cancellation of the decree in O.S. No. 451 of 1944, on the file of the District Mun-siff Court, Masulipatam, and A.S. No. 90 of 1947 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Masulipatam, and secondly, for the partition of the plaint schedule properties and for the due allotment of the sliare of the plaintiff and separate possession thereof.3. Into the various allegations contained in the plaint and the counter allegations made by the defendants in their written statements, we do not propose to enter- The suit was being adjourned from time to time for steps and service. Eventually, issues were settled on 2...
Pillarisetti Gotilingam Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP488
ORDERNarasimham, J. 1. This is a revision petition present ed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 128/55 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Nandyal, against an order of that court dated 14-9-1959 rejecting an application by the plaintiff for Permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of the suit. 2. The facts relevant for purposes of this revision are these : The plaintiff is a Government employee working as the Commissioner of Nandyal Municipality According to the Service Register, his date of birth is 20-7-1903 and he would be superannuated on the completion of 55 years. While so, he had instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Nandyal, on 14-6-1958 for a declaration that his correct date of birth was 20-12-1906 and that an alteration should be made to that effect in the Service Register and also prayed for an injunction against the State of Andhra Pradesh to restrain it from enforcing his retirement in acc...
Chimandas Methuram and ors. Vs. Manager Mahadevappa Firm and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP417
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This revision petition raises an interesting question, namely whether the properties situate beyond the jurisdiction of a Court in which a suit is filed could be attached under Order 38, Rule 5 or Order 21, Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The material facts may be briefly stated. The first respondent plaintiff laid an action for the recovery of Rs. 5,080/- based on a document executed by defendants 1 to 4 on 14-1-1955 to the District Munsif's Court, Adoni. Pending the suit, he applied1 for attachment before judgment of the immovable properties described in the schedule annexed to the petition and certain monies in the hands of the present appellants who were constituted trustees for the purpose of discharging the debts due by defendants 1 to 4 who were not in solvent circumstances.3. The petition was opposed chiefly on the ground that as the properties were outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit was filed, they could ...
Bendakayala Abdul Rajack and ors. Vs. Vastad Abdul Latheef
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP482
ORDER1. This is a Petition to revise the order of the District Munsif, Nandyal, in E. p. No. 302 of 1959 in C. M. A. No. 27 of 1959 (Additional Sub-Court. Kurnool).2. The relevant facts are as follows:-Abdul Lateef, the respondent filed O. S no. 66 of 1958 in the Court of the District Munsif, Nandyal Praying for a declaration that he was a Peish Imam and Muttawalli of a certain mosque and that he was entitled to exercise the rights of such office and for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing him in exercising those rights. The plaintiff filed I. A. No. 320 of 1958 in the District Mun-sifs Court, Nandyal asking for a temporary injunction against the defendants. The learned District Munsif passed an order of temporary injunction on 22-4-1958. The eight defendants took the matter in appeal in C. M. A. No. 27 of 1959 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool in that Court, both parties filed a joint memo and accordingly, the learned ...
Yerra Narasimhagari Narasimha Reddi Vs. the State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP304; 1961CriLJ62
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This matter has been referred to a bench by one of us having regard to two judgments which require further consideration viz., one in Subrayulu Naidu v. Kailasam Pillai 1935 Mad. W.N. 645 and the other in Gr. R.C. No. 207 of 1956 (Andhra). The petition is to stay the trial of a 'Sessions case No. 35 of 1960 committed in P.R.C. No. 2 of 1960 pending the committal of a private complaint against same number of accused plus one named Mahananda Reddy and for a joint trial of both the cases. It appears that 33 persons were going to the railway station Vanganur to attend court in Proddatur, Cuddapah District, At about 11-30 p.m.. when they reached Pennar river, the 21 accused along with one Mahananda Reddy were hiding and they dispersed in three directions and began to commit riot and fired at the party. Some of them were injured and one of them killed. The police, after investigation filed a charge-sheet only against 21 accused on 14-3-1960 after which some of the accu...
P. Ramabhadra Raju Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP355; [1962]45ITR118(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 (XXVII of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is challenged.2. The Wealth Tax Officer, Eluru passed orders on 26-1-1958 and 22-11-1958 assessing the petitioner and his adopted sou as a Hindu Undivided family to wealth-tax for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59 respectively under Section 16(3) of the Act, and the assets of the family were made eligible to a tax of Rs. 27,779-85 nP. for the year 1957-58 and Rs. 37, 491-98 nP. for 1958-59. By notices dated 26-1-1958 and 22-11-1958, the assessee was required to pay the taxes under Section 30 of the Act on or before 15-2-1958 and 24-12-1958 respectively. Thereupon, the assessee moved this court to remove those orders on certiorari.3. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that Section 3 of the Act, which enables the Revenue to tax a Hindu Undivided Family, is beyond ...
J. Ramamurthy Naidu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP344
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. Writ Appeal No. 54 of 1960 and Writ Petition No. 994 of 1958 raise a common question relating to the interpretation of Section 44(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and could therefore be disposed of by one judgment. For an appraisal of the contentions arising in these matters, it is sufficient to state a few material facts in Writ Appeal No. 54 of 1960.2. The Regional Transport Authority, Nellore suspended the permit of the stage Carriage ADC No. 722 plying on the route Netlore to Tirupathi for a period of six months for a contravention of one of the conditions of the permit viz., overloading of the vehicle, after hearing the objections of the operator. An appeal was carried to the State Transport Authority with no success. The dispute was then taken in revision to the State Government by the aggrieved permit holder. That revision petition did not bear any fruit.3. The operator then approached this Court for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Co...
Thimmasamudram Tobacco Co. Vs. Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Nell ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP324
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brother, Seshachalapati J. refusing to issue a writ of prohibition against the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nellore, to forbear him from proceeding further with his enquiry and adjudication, in pursuance of the notice dated 19-6-1958.2. The facts relating to this appeal are susceptible of simple and concise statement. The petitioner is a firm dealing in the purchase and sale, of several varieties of leaf tobacco with a warehouse in Timmasamudram, a village in Guntur District. The Additional Deputy Superintendent (Central Excise) called upon the appellant, by his notice dated 4-10-1957, for contravening rules 151 and 151(c) read with rule 141 of the Central Excise Rules, to show cause why 6895 1bs of tobacco should not be confiscated and also why a penalty under rule 151 (c) should not be levied.3. The appellant sent his explanation and also requested that he might be given a personal hearing.4. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »