Andhra Pradesh Court February 1964 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.
Boottam Pitchiah Vs. Boyapati Koteswara Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-29-1964
Reported in: AIR1964AP519
ORDERMunikanniah, J.1. The common question raised in these two revision petitions is whether a promissory note executed outside British India but bearing Indian Stamp sufficient for validation as a negotiable instrument requires again the proper stamp to be affixed and cancelled before it is endorsed in favour of the first holder in India.2. The few following facts are necessary to be stated:The Small Cause Suits Nos. 223 and 224 of 1956 have been filed by the plaintiff each for recovery of Rs. 1,297-1-9 based on two separate promissory notes executed on 26-5-1953 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff's transferor. Each of those promissory notes bore the Indian Stamp sufficient for validation of the stamp if they were executed In India. But the learned Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada has found that those promissory notes in fact were executed in Katla Kachavaram in Hyderabad State in favour of the transferor of the plaintiff and endorsed in favour of the plaintiff on 16-5-1956. The...
Rajaram Sampat Kumar Rathi and anr. Vs. Sha Kapoor Chandji Kishorilal, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1964AP537
ORDERSharfuddin Ahmed, J.1. These two revisions 713 and 716 of 1961 arise out of a common order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada and made in S. C. Suits Nos. 251 and 252 of 1960 on his file.2. The two suits were filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the petitioner-defendant allegingthat his was a registered firm carrying on business at Kakinada. The petitioner-defendant's was a joint family firm carrying on business at the same place and one Raja Ram the father is the managing member of the family; that on 1-12-1959 the petitioner-defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 900/- and executed a promissory note agreeing to pay the said amount with interest at 1-0-6% per mensem. In the second suit the amount claimed was Rs. 1500/- and the promissory note wasdated 27-11-1959.3. The petitioner-defendant pleaded that the two notes are not supported by any valid consideration. He was carrying on his speculative business in castor seeds, cotton, silver and gold with one Umed Mall. The pe...
Cheekati Kuriminaidu and ors. Vs. Karri Padmanabham Bhukta and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1964AP539
Anakthanarayana Ayyar, J.1. Ten petitioners have filed this writ petition praying that this Court may call for the records relating to the order of the Sub-Collector, Parvatipuram in I. A. C. R. A. 10 of 1962 dated 9-7-1952 and issue 3 writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing that order.2. The relevant facts are as follows: Certain lands in the village of Neelakanthapurarn wero leased out by the owners in favour of certain lessees under cowle (Ex. D.5) dated 5-2-1906 for a period of 3 years. 'It provided for a rent of RS. 51-4-0 per year. Though the period of lease under it expired in 1909, beyond doubt or dispute, the tenants continued to be in possession as lessees holding over and cultivated the lands up to date. On 10-5-1927 the owners of the lands executed a mortgage deed (Ex, P-5) in favour of the persons who were then lessees. It provided as follows :-'I have to-day borrowed from you Rs. 666.10.8 repayable with an annual interest of Rs. 40/- thereon and as A sec...
Sree Madana Gopalaswami Varu of Ballipadu Vs. Vanga Padmaraju and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1966AP210
Gopalakrishnan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, who, on appeal, upheld the decision of the District Munsif, Tanuku, dismissing the plaintiff's application for a final decree in a suit for recovery of a sum of money by sale of a certain parcel of land which had been offered as security to the plaintiff by the defendants. The property which was offered as security for the debt had been admittedly held by the defendants-respondents as washerman service inam. It is also common ground that this land being a service inam, falls within the mischief of Section 5 of the Madras Hereditary Village-offices Act, III of 1895 which prohibits its alienation. This prohibition is founded on public policy which, aims at preventing dissociation from the office if the emoluments attached thereto, for such dissociation would impair the efficiency of the service to be rendered and thereby injuriously affect the interest of the sections of the community intended ...
Union of India Per Secretary to Govt. Department of Supply, New Delhi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1966AP218
Narasimham, J.1. This is an appeal by the sole defendant in O. S. 74 of 1959, which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff is a firm of auctioneers. It acted as the auctioneer for the Government of India during the period from October 1945 to November 1946. As security for the proper discharge of its functions, the firm deposited a sum of Rs. 11,000 with the Government of India in or about the end of October 1945. There was settlement of accounts about the middle of the year 1947 at which a sum of Rs. 4398 was found due to the said Government. The plaintiff-firm has laid the suit on 7-12-1959 for the recovery of Rs. 6,602 being the balance of deposit amount after deducting Rs. 4,398 due to the Government. The amount was claimed with interest at 12 per cent from the date of suit. The facts were not disputed by the defendant, the Union of India, represented by its Secretary in the Department of Supply. But the suit was contested on the question whether it was in time. Th...
M. Dorayya and anr. Vs. Sri Baleswaraswami Varu and Sri Venugopalaswam ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1966AP259
ORDERGopal Rao Ekbote, J.1. In this revision petition, the only question involved is as to whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Estates Abolition Tribunal was within time. 2. The essential facts in order to resolve that problem are that in a suo motu enquiry by the Assistant Settlement Officer the parties filed application for the grant of a patta. Originally the Assistant Settlement Officer decided in favour of the petitioner and directed the grant of a patta under Section 11(a) of the Act. Thereupon an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer who allowing the appeal remanded the matter to the Assistant Settlement Officer. On remand, this time the Assistant Settlement Officer found that it is a Government waste land and consequently reached the conclusion that no patta can be granted to any one of the parties. The respondents therefore preferred an appeal to the Estates Abolition Tribunal under Section 15 of the Act whereas the petitioner preferred a revision be...
Akarapu Rajachanna Visweswara Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andh ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP1
ORDER(1) These two writ petitions are filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and the central question involved in both the applications being common they can be deposed of by one common judgment. I would however mention for the purpose of appreciating the other points the facts of both the cases separately. (2) In writ petition No. 117 of 1963, the petitioner, who is admittedly a minor but was admitted to the partnership firm for the purposes of benefit, was assessed for the years 1957 to 1960. The assessment however did not include the surcharge treating the income during that period as an unearned income. It makes difference because in cases of earned income, the surcharge is 5% while in cases of unearned income the surcharge is 15%. The Income-tax Officer, acting under Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, hereinafter called 'the Act', went into the record of the assessment for the year 1960-61 and as he thought that the record disclosed a mistake, inasmuch as the petitioner was not ...
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Shaik SabhanuddIn Allahuddin
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1965AP188; (1965)IILLJ356AP
(1) These two appeals arise out of the judgment of the Third Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, at Secunderabad, in O. S. No. 55 of 1960. The plaintiff in this suit was a Sub-Inspector, who served in the former Government of Hyderabad. He was appointed on 1-8-1947. In the course of his service, he was attached to the Railway Police. There was a departmental enquiry against him on charges of alleged misconduct in the discharge of his official duties, and he was discharged from service by an order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C. I. D. and Railways dated 7-8-1950. The Government rejected his appeal against the order discharging him. Thereafter he instituted a suit on 31-1-1955 for a declaration that the order of suspension dated 30-1-1950 and the order of discharge dated 7-8-1950 were null and void and claiming consequential reliefs of reinstatement, damages and arrears of salary against the Government. He filed the suit in forms pauperis claiming Rs. 10,000/- as...
Pullareddigari Venkatasubba Reddi and ors. Vs. Pullareddigari Peddasub ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1964AP458
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Justice Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, reversing that of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly narrated.2. The respondents laid an action (O. S. No. 37/1946) for partition and separate possession of their shares in the joint family properties. On 21-8 1948 there was a preliminary decree passed by consent. In pursuance thereof, a Commissioner was appointed and further steps were taken, ultimately there was a compromise on 15-12-51 which formed the basis of the final decree, by and under which the properties set out in schedules A and A-1 were allotted to the plaintiffs-respondents and those comprised in B and B-1 schedules were allotted to the defendants. The decree provided for taking out execution and obtaining possession through Court.Subsequently, the respondents applied for delivery of possession of item (i) of A-1 schedule, as well as other properties forming part of A and A-1 sche...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›