Andhra Pradesh Court August 1962 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.
Smt. Penumatcha Subhadrayyamma Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eas ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP466
Umamaheswaram, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the original petition No. 67 of 1957 on the file of the District Court of East Godavari at Rajahmundry. The claimant Penumatcha Subhadrayyamma has preferred Appeal No. 133 of 1959 under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming enhancement of compensation. Appeal No. 201 of 1959 was filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry against the same award contending that the amount of compensation wan wrongly enhanced by the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. The main question that arises for decision in both the appeals is as to the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant in respect of the property acquired.2. The property acquired consists of 4 acresand 40542 square feet in extent along with the buildings thereon in the town of Rajahmundry. Theplinth area of the buildings acquired is 28,048square feet The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry who is the Land Acquisition Officer, valued the land and ...
Konduru Seshu Reddi Vs. Vemareddy Rama Raghavareddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-1962
Reported in: AIR1964AP118
Satyanarayana Raju, J.1. This appeal is from the Judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore, in O. S. No. 67 of 1955, which was filed by the appellant for a declaration that the term in the compromise decree in O. P. No. 3 of 1950, on the file of the District Court Nellore, that the lands set out in the plaint schedule are the personal properties of defendants 1 to 5 and not the absolute properties of Sri Kodandaratnaswami temple, is not valid and binding on the said temple.2. The plaintiff is a worshipper and as such interested in safeguarding the interests of the temple. Defendants 1 to 5 are members of a composite family. The 6th defendant is the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments.3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The properties set out in the plaint schedule comprise an extent of 50 acres of wet land and over 200 acres of dry land. They fetch an annual income of not less than Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/-. Under the compromise, th...
Rabina Bibi Vs. Pulipaka Satyavathi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP304
Krishna Rao, J. 1. This second appeal is brought by the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 46 of 1955 against we judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Kakinada in A.S. No. 70 of 1957.2. The facts in brief are as follows: Under an agreement Ex. A-1, dated 9-11-1951, executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff, she (1st defendant) agreed to sell the plaint house to the plaintiff tar Rs. 1,600/-. She received a sum of Rs. 150/- as 'Bajana' or earnest money, and the balance was to be paid to her at the time of the registration of the sale deed for which one month's time was allowed to the plaintiff. The one month's time was subsequently extended under Ex. A-2 dated 13-12-1951, Ex. A-3 dated 28-12-1931, Ex. A-4 dated 24-1-1952, Ex. A-5 dated 1-2-1952 and Ex. A-6 dated 27-3-1952.On each of these occasions, the plaintiff made payments towards the purchase money and got the time extended by a few days. The last extension was under Ex. A-6 for 20 days from 27-3-1952 on the payment...
Cheladma Venkata Ram Rao Vs. Engu Narayana and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-1962
Reported in: AIR1963AP168
Jaganmohan Reddy, J. 1. The following question has been referred tothe Full Bench by our learned brothers ManoharPershad and Munikannaiah, JJ.: 'Has the appellate Court power to proceed with the hearing of the appeal and to reverse and vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or defendants under Order 22 Rule 3 and Order 41, Rule 4 C.P.C. it all the plaintiffs or defendants appeal from the decree and one of them dies and no substitution is effected within time always assuming that the decree proceeds on a ground common to all the plaintiffs or defendants'.2. The aforesaid question appears to have arisen in the following circumstances:The petitioner in C. M. Ps. 6368 and 6369/60 filed a suit against five defendants for a declaration of his title to the suit properties as pattedar and for recovery of possession thereof. The trial Court decreed the suit, and against the judgment and decree the defendants filed A.S. No. 24/1 of 1954-55. After the appeal was filed in the High Court a...
Parimisetti Seetharamamma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Prade ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR450(AP)
CHANDRA REDDY C.J. - The question at issue in this reference is formulated in these words :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case what the assessee received in the relevant years is assessable to tax and whether section 34 of the Income-tax Act would be invoked in regard to the years 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1950-51 ?'The reference relates to the assessment years 1947-48 and 1950-51, the inclusion of 1948-49 being an obvious mistake since the appeal preferred by the assessee in regard to that assessment year before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was allowed and is not involved in this reference.The assessee is one Seetharamamma alias Manavathi Bai. Though she was born near Eluru, she was brought up in Pithapur of East Godavari District. She was born in very humble circumstances belonging to the class familiarly known as 'dasis'. Her parents and sisters were employed in the Pithapur estate. Consequently, she came to be associated with the third daughter of the Maharaj...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›