Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963AP452
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The primary point that falls for decision in this Letters Patent Appeal relates to the scope of Article 182 (5) of the Indian Limitation Act and it arises in the following circumstances :2. The appellant filed a suit in the court of the District Munsif, Tirupathi, for recovery of possession of a vacant site situated in the Tirupati town leased out by his father permanently to the respondent on a rental of Rs. 2/- per month on the ground that it did not bind him. Judgment was entered by the trial Court in favour of the appellant on 7-9-1949. An appeal carried by the aggrieved respondent to the appellate Court proved unsuccessful, the date of the appellate Court's decree being 5-12-1950. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent sought stay of execution of the decree and that was granted on condition that he deposited the costs awarded against him. The respondent deposited the costs on 17-1-1950. The appellant applied for payment out of this amount by mea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963AP429
ORDERVenkatesam, J.1. This is a petition under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, to revise the order of the learned Dist. Munsif, Ongole in I. A. 405/61 in O. S. 189/60. That application was tiled under Order 26, Rule 4 and Section 151, C. P. C. for the issue of a commission to examine and record the evidence of Sri M. V. Dixit, a Hand-writing Expert of Nagpur. The suit O. S. 189 of 1960 was laid for specific performance of a contract of sale dated 25-7-57 for a sum of Rs.. 100/- executed by the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant being the subsequent purchaser of the same property for Rs. 7,000/-. The 1st defendant denied Having executed the contract of sale. The plaintiff took photographic copies of the suit document with the permission of the Court and also of the admitted signatures of the 1st defendant and sent them to Mr. Dixit. the Government Examiner of Questioned documents of Nagpur for his-opinion. He gave his opinion that the document was genuine. Thereupon I. A. 406/61 was fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963AP455; [1964]51ITR213(AP)
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The question referred for the opinion of this Court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act is:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss of Rs. 4.004/- caused by theft, is an allowable deduction?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1957-58, the accounting year being 1956-57. The assessee derived income from several sources one of them being the agency of Tata Mercedes Benz. It would appear that a stranger came to the assessee's shop during business hours, sat down near the cash box and was talking to him. Just then, he had to go into another room to talk on the telephone. Taking advantage of this situation, the stranger is said to have removed the cash from the cash box and disappeared with it. The assessee claimed this loss under Section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act as an allowable deduction as incidental to the carrying on of the business. This was disallowed by the Revenue.3. The appeals carried by the as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963AP403
Umamaheswaram, J.1. Both these Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the judgment and decree of our learned brother Sanjeeva Row Nayudu J., in Appeals No. 214 of 1956. Defendants 21, 4 and 5 are the appellants in L.P.A. No. 20 of 1961 and the 1st defendant is the Appellant in L.P.A. No. 34 of 1961. The plaintiff and defendants 18 and 19 in O. S. No. 6 of 1954 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Amalapuram are the sons of the 17th defendant. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff as a minor represented by his maternal uncle as the guardian for partition and separate possession of one fourth share in the family properties described in schedules A and B.The case of the plaintiff was that his father, the 17th defendant, who was an agriculturist, started a new business Viz., rice mill business and that the debts incurred by him were avyavabarika debts and that consequently the alienations effected by the father of B. schedule properties under three sale deeds Exhibits B.1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1963]49ITR766(AP)
UMAMAHESWARAM J. - This reference arises under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Penalty was levied against a Hindu undivided family of which the petitioner was a member. According to the petitioner after disruption of the joint family status, he preferred the appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal questioning the levy of penalty. The Appellate Tribunal held as follows :'According to the assessee, the Hindu undivided family, which is the assessee, had become disrupted on October 31, 1957, whereas the penalty was levied on November 5, 1957. For this it relies upon the decision of the Income-tax Officer in regard to the assessees application under section 25A. Therefore, according to the assessee, the legal entity on which the penalty has been levied had ceased to exist on the date of levy of penalty. There is no question of any legal entity questioning the validity or the quantum of the penalty levied in any appeal against the order in question since the order is il...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963AP249; 1963CriLJ733
Basi Reddy, J.1. The accused in this case, Amalla Koteswara Rao, has been convicted of the murder of a man called Boginedi Peddanna and has been sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge of Guntur. The offence is stated to have been committed on 19-3-1952 in the village of Anantharappad near the tobacco barn of P. W. 2 (Parchuri Bodaiah alias Chinna Hanumaiah). The manner of attach was by stabbing with a big knife (M. O. 1), described by one of the witnesses is a Knife generally used for cutting goats and fowls. It has a blade of about 8' in length. The victim died at about 8--00 P. M. on the same day in the Government General Hospital, Guntur, where he had been removed for treatment. (After narrating the case for the prosecution and discussing the evidence (Paras 2-17), the judgment proceeded:)18. In the face of the unimpeachable and conclusive, evidence adduced by the prosecution, the plea of the accused is unavailing. All the aforesaid pieces of evidence proved by reliable evidence, ...
Tag this Judgment!