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.
Paruchuri Suryanarayana Vs. Paruchuri Sugunavathi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP393
Satvanarayana Raju, J.,1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Gudi-vada, in O. S. No. 160 of 1951. That was a suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's half share in the immoveable properties described in Schedules A and B appended to the plaint.2. The plaintiffs husband Siva Rao, and the defendant are the sons of one Venkatakrishnayya. The plaintiff was married to Sivarao on the 15th June, 1949, and shortly thereafter her marriage was consummated, but ill-luck would have it, Sivarao died on the 4th April, 1950. Her father-in-law, predeceased her husband, with the result that the defendant is the sole surviving member of the coparcenary.On the basis of the right conferred by the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, whose operation was subsequently extended to agricultural properties by means of an Amending Act passed by the Madras Legislature, the plaintiff claims that she is entitled to have a partition of the famil...
Thodkamalla Venkata Laxmi Narayanarao Vs. Kishanlal
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP326
Sharfuddin Ahmed, J. 1. The short question that requires determination in this Miscellaneous Appeal is whether in the Execution petition filed by the appellant the period of limitation will be computed from the date of the original decree or from the date of the decree passed by the appellate court.2. Briefly, the relevant facts for the appreciation of the arguments are as under: The father of the appellant filed a suit in the City Civil Court against four defendants and obtained a money decree on 10th Shahrewar, 1353 F. (1944 AD) against the 1st defendant; the suit being dismissed against the other defendants. The plaintiff went in appeal to the High Court with the prayer that the suit should be decreed against all the defendants; the 1st defendant (respondent herein) was also made a respondent. The appeal was dismissed on 13-11-1956.Thereupon the plaintiff filed an execution petition on 22-8-1957. It was resisted by the Judgment-debtor (respondent herein) as being beyond time and, th...
Dadi Bhogalingam Vs. Indo Commercial Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP346
Kumarayya, J.1. This appeal entered on behalf of the plaintiff raises a short point of some interest in law. As a matter of fact two questions arise for determination. While the one pertains to the statute of limitation, the other which is rather vital to the case is concerned with the determination of the exact legal relationship between the 2nd defendant on the one hand, and the 1st defendant or the plaintiff on the other.The question is whether the 2nd defendant is a sub-agent of the 1st defendant or an agent or a substituted agent of the plaintiff for the 1st defendant for purpose of collection of bill amount from the drawee. If it be found that the case is well within the pale of substituted agency or even if privity of contract in any wise be found established between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant it is indisputable that this appeal must fail.2 In order to appreciate the arguments advanced in this respect, it is necessary to relate the material facts of the case in all thei...
V. Vs. Rama Rao Naidu V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad, and Ot ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-12-1960
Reported in: [1961]42ITR80(AP)
BASI REDDY, J. - The common question which falls for determination in these writ petitions is whether the Income-tax Officer, Vizianagaram Circle, was right in treating the petitioner as the legal representative of his mother Mahalakshmamma, and in that view holding him liable to pay half the income-tax assessed on her for the three years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. The provision of law under which the petitioner is sought to be made liable is sub-section (1) of section 24B of the Indian Income-tax Act, which provides :'Where a person dies, his executor, administrator, or other legal representative shall be liable to pay out of the estate of the deceased person to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the charge, the tax assessed as payable by such person, or any tax which would have been payable by him under this Act if he had not died.'The undisputed facts are as follows :The petitioner (V. V. Rama Rao Naidu) and his brother (V. V. Narayana Rao Naidu) are the sons of...
In Re: Bandi Murugulu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1963AP87; 1963CriLJ142
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The Sessions Judge of East Godavari has convicted Bandi Murugulu alias Mulaganna of Bandarlanka, under Section 302 for the murder of one Juttuga Venkamma at about 6 P.M. on 6-5-1960 in the cocoanut garden of Peri Ramaswami Sarma, P.W. 9 and sentenced him to death subject to the confirmation of the High Court. The accused has also filed, an appeal against his conviction and sentence.2. The prosecution alleged that the accused and the deceased who were both Harijans had been having illicit intimacy for a considerably long period. They were also working for Peri Ramaswami Sarma, P.W. 9, a landlord of Bandarlanka village. Until about six months prior to the incident the accused was dismissed by the landlord on the complaint of P.W. 2 Bokka Naganna who also worked for the same landlord. The deceased is the wife of P.W. 4 and as we said, according to the prosecution, she had contracted illicit intimacy with the accused which evidently discontinued on the accused being ...
Gumpana Hanumantha Rao Vs. T.S. Rama Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-03-1960
Reported in: AIR1961AP493; [1962]32CompCas466(AP); 1961CriLJ615
Krishna Rao, J. 1. This appeal is brought under Section 22 of the Companies Act, (VII of 1913) - hereinafter called the Act -- and is directed against the order of the Court of the District Judge, Krishna, sanctioning the prosecution of the appellant for 12 offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477-A, I. P. C. On 2-8-1950, the Madras High Court in O. P. No. 168 of 1949 ordered the winding up of the Jaggayyapeta Electricity and Water Supply Corporation Ltd., Jaggayyapet (hereinafter called the Company'). The first respondent to this appeal, Ramarao was appointed as the Official Liquidator and O. P. No. 168 of 1949 was transferred to the lower Court for further proceedings. The appellant was the promoter and the managing agent of the Company. On 4-1-1958 respondents 2 and 3 who are the shareholders, made the application to the lower Court, which has given rise to the appeal, under Sections 179, 237 (1) and 238-A of the Act. Fourteen distinct offences punishable under Sections 407 an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›