Andhra Pradesh Court July 1961 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.
Thummala Rama Rao and ors. Vs. Chodagam Venkateswara Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1963AP154
Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants 6, 7, 8 and 10 against the decree in O. S. No. 28 of 1955 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Guntur. The suit was filed by the three plaintiffs, who are the respondents in this appeal to recover a sum of Rs. 18,173-12-2 being the amount of principal and interest due on three promissory notes for Rs. 10,000/- each. There are 11 defendants in this suit. The 11th defendant is Gokul Krishna Film Distributing Company, Vijayawada. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendants 1 to 10 are the partners of the 11th defendant firm. One promissory note was executed by the 5th defendant in favour of the 1st plaintiff for Rs. 10,000/- on 17-12-1951. Another promissory note was executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd plaintiff for another sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 9-9-1951. The third promissory note was executed also by the 1st defendant for another sum of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the third plaintiff on 9-9-1951. T...
Mahadevuni Vasudeva Raju Vs. Badravada Subbaraju and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ130
ORDERAnantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Principal Judicial Second Glass Magistrate, Eluru in M.P. No. 33 of 1961 in C.C. No. 95 of 1961 on his file.2. The relevant facts are briefly these: The revision petitioner originally filed a complaint against the respondents herein in C.C. No. 105 of 1959 on the file of the Principal J.S.C.M. Eluru. The complainant alleged that on 27.12.1958, the respondents went into his house and inflicted injuries on his person in consequence of his refusal to advance some loan to the wife of one of the respondents. The complainant examined five witnesses on his behalf to substantiate the offence. The respondents denied the commission of the offence. The Magistrate after a consideration of the evidence of four witnesses, found that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence acquitted all the four accused.The complainant filed C.A. 502 of 1959 in this Court against the ju...
Pullagura Subbaiah Chetty and Brothers Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC735(AP)
ORDERP. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The question that is posed by this revision case is whether wheat is a millet for purposes of Schedule III of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.2. The revision case relates to the assessment year 1957-58. In the return submitted by the assessee, he claimed that the turnover represented by the sale of wheat was not exigible to tax as it has already suffered tax at the first purchase point. Overruling the objection, the department levied tax on the purchase of wheat in the view that Schedule III is inapplicable to wheat. Hence the revision. 3. Schedule III catalogues the commodities in respect of which a single point purchase tax only is leviable under Section 5(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. One of the articles included in the Schedule is 'millets'. The point for consideration is whether the expression 'millets' comprehends 'wheat'. The department thought that wheat is outside the pale of the expression 'millets'. On the ...
Salla Venkata Reddy Vs. Bheemreddy Jadikonti Ramreddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1963AP239
Srinivasachari, J.1. An interesting question of law arises in this case. Two persons, Avanchi Abbaiah and Jagannadham, executed a registered sale deed on 2nd February, 1951. A suit was filed in the Court of the District Munsif, Warangal, for possession, against defendants 1 and 2 of the northern portion of the property and as against defendant 3 for the southern portion. The suit was contested by defendant No. 3 relying on two documents, one executed by Jagannadham, an unregistered sale deed dated 29th December, 1950 and another executed by Abbaiah, a mortgage deed dated 9th January, 1951. The plea of the third defendant was that he was in possession of the property under an unregistered sale deed and a mortgage not registered and he was entitled to retain possession and resist the suit for eviction under the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The first Court decreed the suit because these two documents were not on stamp paper and also not r...
In Re: Gonugunta Narasimha Chetty
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-07-1961
Reported in: 1963CriLJ109
ORDERAnantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. In C. C. No. 91 of 1959, three accused were tried by the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Kavali for an offence under Sections 16(1) and 7(1) read with Section 2(i)(1) and Rule 44(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act 37 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to for convenience as the Act) on a complaint filed by the Food Inspector, Kavali. The learned Additional Munsiff-Magistrate acquitted A-2 and A-3 but convicted A-1 of the offence and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 15/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The first accused filed this revision against the conviction and sentence.2. On 3-4-1961, when this petition originally came on for hearing, my learned brother Basi Reddy, J. issued notice to A-1 asking him to show cause why the sentence passed on him by the lower court should not be enhanced. The notice for enhancement of the sentence was duly served on A-1. Arguments were fully heard on both sides.3. The prosecution c...
Koduri Krishnarao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962AP249
Krishna Rao, J. (1) This is a plaintiff's appeal from the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru dismissing his suit to recover a sum of Rs.1,92,192-8-0 as damages from the State of Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff was the lessee for the period from 1-7-47 to 31-3-52 of the rights of working the Rajahmundry-Dowlaishwara steamer 'Dorothy' and with country boats and of running a steam boat service in the river Godavari above the anticut with the Government-owned steamer 'Helen'. He purchased the lease right at a publicauction held on 20-6-1947 by the Divisional Engineer (Highways) Kakinada in pursuance of the sale notification Ex. B-1 and entered into an agreement Ex. B-2 with the Government of the composite State of Madras for the payment of an annual rental of Rs. 22,500/-. He brought the suit claiming damages on the ground that the Government had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. The first head of his claim was for Rs.5500/-, in reimbursement of th...
Chanda Yadgiri Vs. M. Venkataiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1963AP241
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This appeal is against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar, dismissing an execution petition filed by the appellant on the ground that it was barred by limitation.2. A decree was obtained by one Buchi Rama Rao for a sum of Rs. 13,830/- against the respondents and some others on 11-1-1949, which was confirmed on appeal by the erstwhile Hyderabad High Court. The decree-holder levied execution of the decree for the first time on 20th Seotember, 1950. Pending execution, he assigned the decree to the appellant. Immediately, the transferee made an application Under Order 21, Rule 16 with the assignment deed annexed. As this document was insufficiently stamped, it was sent to the revenue authorities for impounding it. since there was delay In getting it back, the executing Court struck off the execution petition from the file, being of the opinion that it was not desirable to Keep the matter pending before the Court and that it was open to the parties to submi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›