Andhra Pradesh Court December 1961 Judgments
Sri Tankala Appalaswamy Gari Samba Murthy Vs. Gopasundara Sabatho
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1963AP127
Anantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Munsif, Sompeta in E. A. No. 578 of 1958 in E. P. No. 303 of 1958 in O. S. No. 41 of 1946 on his file.2. The relevant facts are briefly these:- The petitioner is the decree-holder. He was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 41 of 1946. He filed E. P. No. 303 of 1958 in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 41 of 1946. On 7-11-1958, the E. P was dismissed on the ground that batta was not paid. On that day, more than twelve years had elapsed from the date of the passing of the decree in O. S. No. 41 of 1946. The decree-holder filed E. A. No. 578 of 1958 praying for restoration of the E. P. alleging that the batta could not be paid due to over-sight on the part of the clerk of the pleader appearing for him (plaintiff) and that he would be put to irreparable loss if the E. P. was not restored. The learned District Munsiff framed one point for determination as follows:'Whether the execution petition can be restored, whi...
Tag this Judgment!Shahnavaz Begum and Two Others Being Minors by Guardian Ekbalunnisa Be ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1964AP233
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1.This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters patent is against the judgment of Bhimasankaram, J. affirming that of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in Appeal No. 17 of 1955.2. The facts culminating in this appeal lie in a short compass and may be staled as follows. A vacant sitemeasuring 1060 sq. yards situate in the heart of Vijayawada town and belonging to one Syed Abdul Khayum Saheb and his brother was leased out to one Motey Narayana Rao of Elirru in 1922 for seven years for the purpose of erecting a theatre on the site. It was provided in the lease deed that after the expiry of the lease, the theatre should be dismantled and the vacant site delivered back to the lessor. There was a term in the lease deed to the effect that the brick walls constructed by the lessee of few months before the lease started with the permission of the lessors should be relinquished in favour of the lessors; Somelime In the year 1929, the present respondent purchased the superstructur...
Tag this Judgment!Royal Medical Hall Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR748(AP)
KUMARAIAH J. - As required by this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, bench, has drawn a consolidated statement of the case, agreed to by the parties, and referred it under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act on the following question :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proviso to section 13 of the Act Should be invoked ?'The reference relates to the assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55, the relevant accounting period being the years 1951, 1952 and 1953 ending on 30th September of each year. The assessee is a partnership concern carrying on the business of chemist and druggists including dispensing of medicines at Hyderabad. It has a medical store and deals in medicines or retail as well as wholesaled basis. For the period under reference, the assessees books disclosed a turnover of Rs. 2.58, 3.16 and 3.78 lakhs on which the gross profit return was 7.8, 5.6 and 4.5 per cent. respectively. The Income-tax Officer did not acce...
Tag this Judgment!Rani J. Sarala Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR837(AP)
KUMARAYYA J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, as required by this court, under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, stated the case and referred the following question for determination :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to the allowance claimed by her for the assessment years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56 ?'The assessee years under referred are 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56, the relevant accounting period being the years ending September 30, 1952, September 30, 1953, and September 30, 1954, respectively. The assessee is an individual deriving income from investments in Government securities, shares of public limited companies and immovable properties. She has no money-lending business and is not a money-lender by profession or vocation. She was shareholder and a director in a private limited company known as Bharat Development Corporation (Private) Ltd., Katpadi, in which some of her relations were also sharehold...
Tag this Judgment!Hiranand Ramsukh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR598(AP)
KUMARAYYA J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, has on the requisition of this court referred under section 66(2) the following questions for determination :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to recognise Venugopal as a genuine partner of the firm and2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the department was justified in law in refusing to register the firm under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'These questions arise out of the order refusing registration under section 26A of the Act for the five assessment years beginning from 1951-52 and ending with 1955-56. The assessees firm originally consisted of two partners, Ramprasad and Bhagwandas, with equal shares. But later on Ramprasad took in Mrs. Chandrabai, his aunt, as partner with Rs. 0-4-0 share by splitting up his own share of Rs. 0-8-0. These two shares were further split up and Ramprasads minor son, Venugopal, w...
Tag this Judgment!Kondapalli Ayyanna and ors. Vs. Venka Bhadraiah Minor by Guardian Venk ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1963AP15
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. This is a petition for leave to appeal to the SupremeCourt against an order of one of us and the late Ramachandra Rao J., holding that the petitioners were not the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondents in A. S. No. 436 of 1956, that the second appellant therein, i.e., the present respondent was the sole representative of the deceased 1st appellant by reason of the will bequeathing all her properties to him and that the interests of the sole respondent in the appeal vested in the 2nd appellant. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly these :One Mokhamatla Venkanna, a rich landlord of Akutlgappandu, a village in the West Godavari District died intestate on 8-12-1952 leaving behind him two widowsKondamma and Venkata Lakshmi Devi. Kondamma, the senior widow, adopted one Bhadrayya, her brother's son's son on 7th March 1953. Questioning the factum and the validity of this adoption, the junior widow Venkta Lakshmi Devi filed O. S. No. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Magunta Kota Reddy (Died) and ors. Vs. Pothula Chendrasekhara Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1963AP42
Basi Reddy, J.1. Appeal No. 279 of 1955: This appeal is by defendants 4, 6 and 7 in O.S. No. 57 of 1947 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nellore, who were also respondents 3 10 5 in I.A. No. 168 of 1951 in that suit, against the final decree for mesne profits in respect of item 4 of the plaint A schedule lands, which was passed by the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge on 20th September, 1954. During the pendency of this appeal, the 4th defendant died and his legal representatives have been brought on record as appellants 4 and 5. In passing the above decree, the learned Subordinate Judge disagreed with the report of the Commissioner which, in his view, was thoroughly unsatisfactory and unhelpful inasmuch as the report was arbitrary, had no factual basis and was totally perverse. The learned Judge, therefore, carefully went into the matter and after scrutinising the evidence adduced by both sides, passed a decree in the following terms so far as defendants 4, 6 and 7 were co...
Tag this Judgment!Vadapalli Krishnamacharyulu and anr. Vs. Sidda Veeraraju and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1964AP527
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This raises the question whether a Letters Patent Appeal could be filed against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court allowing an appeal brought by the respondents against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, remanding a suit brought by the appellants to the trial Court for disposal on merits.2. The learned counsel for the appellants urges that an appeal is competent for the reason that the impugned judgment was passed in a civil miscellaneous appeal and as such it falls within the purview of Clause 15 of the Utters Patent and that it falls outside Nagamma v. Venkattasubbiah, (1959) 2 Andh WR 554. We do not think that we can give effect to this contention. Notwithstanding the fact that the appeal presented by the respondents was described as a civil miscellaneous appeal, it was a second appeal in that it was preferred against the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court passed in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, despite the no...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuma Venkata Seshayya Vs. Bhuma Venkata Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1963AP44
Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. This appeal brought by the judgment-creditor in O. S. 151 of 1956 against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada granting a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from proceeding further with the execution of his decree, raises a question bearing on Order 39 Rule 1 C. P. C. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and are not in dsipute. 2. In execution of a decree obtained by the appellant on the foot of a promissory note in O. S. No. 151 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Vijayawada against the father of respondents 1 to 3, who was the manager of their joint family, the joint family properties of these respondents were brought to sale on 6-7-1957 and were purchased by the 4th respondent. Before the sale could be confirmed, respondents 1 to 3 instituted O. P. No. 46 of 1957 for permission to file a suit in forma pauperis for a declaration, inter alia, that the decree resulting in the sale as also another decree were not bind...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sri Rajah Lakshmi Narasimha Sanyasi Raju Peda Baliarsimhulu Bah ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1963AP46
ORDERBasi Reddy, J.1. This is an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 C. P. C. filed by the appellant and the 1st respondent in A. S. No. 195 of 1958 on the file of this Court, to record a compromise entered into by them and pass a decree in accordance therewith. The appellant was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 112 of 1954 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Srikakulam and the 1st respondent was the defendant therein. Respondents 2 to 5 in A. S. No. 195 of 1953 who purchased the suit property pendente lite and who were added as parties to the appeal by an order of this Court, object to the recording of the compromise and passing a decree in terms thereof on the ground that it is fraudulent and collusive and is intended to defeat their rights.2. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the patties, the material facts which are undisputed may be set out in bare outline.3. Sri Raja Lakshmi Narasimha Sanyasiraju Feda Baliar Simhulu (who will be referred to as the appellant) succe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »