Andhra Pradesh Court July 1963 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.
V. Basavayya Vs. N. Kottayya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP145
Anantanaravana Avyar, J. 1. Veguntha Basavayya, as sole plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 209 of 1952 in the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Eluru, for a dissolution of partnership business carried on between him (plaintiff) and the defendant and for accounts. The case of the plaintiff was that he and the defendant were partners of a partnership firm and did business from 1944 to 1947 in sundry articles and cloth. The defendant contested the suit raising various contentions which result ed in various issues. Of them, Additional Issue No. 1 framed on 31-7-1954 was: 'Whether the suit is not maintainable by reason of the suit partnership being void'? The learned Principal District Munsif heard this as a preliminary issue and held that the suit partnership was illegal, void and unenforceable and that the suit was not main tainable. Accordingly he dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiff filed A.S. No. 36 of 1955 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Eluru. The latter framed 3 single po...
Thaduvayi Venkatasubbamma Vs. Chaluvadi Venkata Subbamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP124
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The simple Question in this second appeal is whether the suit of the respondent is barred by Order 2, Rule 2 C.P.C.There was an earlier partition suit filed on behalf of the minor through her fattier and now the respondent after she became a major has filed a suit with respect to three items of property which were left out in that suit. The appellant is the 3rd defendant who is the sister of the respondent's husband. She claimed these properties as having been gifted to her by her father as Pasupukunkuma and that is the reason why they were not included by the respondent in the former suit. Alternatively she claimed title by adverse possession, it may at this stage be stated that the averment of oral gift to her is not pressed, nor is there any validity relating to adverse possession which has been found as a fact against the appellant by the first appellate court. Learned Advocate for the appellant contends that me first appellate Court is wrong in this conclusi...
Malakala Surya Rao and ors. Vs. Gundapuneedi Janakamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP198; 1964CriLJ504
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This second appeal raises an interesting question of law, viz., whether the statements recorded in a criminal investigation under Section 163 Criminal Procedure Code could be used in a civil proceeding for purposes of cross-examination under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Both the lower Courts had disallowed the proof of these statements and also did not permit the appellants to use them for purposes of discrediting the witnesses by allowing them to use them in cross-examination under Section 145 of the Evidence Act.2. Respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,000/- as damages for cutting away her plantain garden and for Rs. 1000/- towards the value of the she-buffalo and calf belonging to the respondent which the respondent alleged that the appellants had taken away. The first appellant is the son of the 2nd appellant and the 4th and 5th respondents are the sons of the 3rd appellant and they are all related to appellants 1 and 2. It was averred by the ...
The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Through P. Ranga Rao, Sanitary Ins ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP290; 1964CriLJ12
Basi Reddy, J.1. The short question that arises for our consideration in this revision petition filed on behalf of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, is whether a Sanitary Inspector is competent to file a complaint for an offence under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (No. II of 1956) (which will be referred to as 'the Act'). The answer to this question is to be found in two sections of the Act viz., Sections 674 and 119. Before adverting to these provisions, we shall refer to the farts which have green rise to this revision petition.2. One Sri P. Ranga Rao, Sanitary Inspector, Ward. No. 22 (B) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, filed a complaint before the First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad, against one Imamuddin, Proprietor of Tafreen-Deccan Hotel, Hyderabad, for an offence punishable under Section 596 read with Section 521(1) of the Act alleging that on April 4, 1963 the said Imamuddin was found running a hotel named Tafreeh-Deccan in the city of Hyderabad, without obtainin...
In Re : Sugali Nage Naik
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-03-1963
Reported in: 1965CriLJ508
Basi Reddy, J.1. A passing observation By a Division Bench, of this Court in Kamya v. State : AIR1960AP490 regarding the scope of Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code, has occasioned this reference by the Sessions Judge of Anantapur.2. it appears from the letter of reference that in C.C. No. 62 of 1961 on the file of the judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Dharmavaram, one Sugali Nage Naik was charge-sheeted by the police under Sections 379 and 75 IPC. The allegation against Him was that on the night of 6.6.1961, he had committed theft of a goat from the house of one Venkataramudu and that consequently he was liable to be punished under Section 379 IPC, and further, that by reason of a previous conviction and a sentence of nine months' rigorous imprisonment suffered by the accused in C.C. No. 37 of 1958 under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, he was liable to enhanced punishment under the provisions o Section 75 IPC. The learned Magistrate, Who tried the case, accepted the evidence for the prosecuti...
Akhtar Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-02-1963
Reported in: AIR1964AP244
ORDERGopalakrishnan Nair, J1. The petitioner asks for a Writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 10-7-1962 passed by the First respondent-Government removing film from membership or the Andhra Pradesh wakf Board. The main ground on which this petition is based is that the first respondent which passed the Impugned order under Section 18(1)(b) of theMuslim wakfs Act, acted unreasonably, arbitration are Without bona fides. The petitioner was a member of the Wakf Board which was constituted by G. O. Ms. No. 457, Home , (Endowment IV) dated 4-3-1961, THIS board consisted of 11 members. They elected one of them, Sri Latiff, as chairman. 2. At a meeting of the Board held on 29-3-1962 it was resolved that the budget prepared by the finance Committee should be brought up for consideration of the Board along with the review thereof by the Accounts under. On 19-4-1962, however, the Chairman caused it to He informed to the members of the Board including the petitioner that he proposed to invit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›