Andhra Pradesh Court March 1965 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.
inuganti Sobhanadrirao and anr. Vs. Muthangi Jaggayya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1965
Reported in: AIR1966AP92
Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.1. This is an appeal by the Plaintiffs against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 11/58 on the file of the District Court, West Godavari at Eluru dismissing the suit as not maintainable. The suit was an interpleader suit instituted under Section 88 and Order 35 C. P. C.2. The plaintiffs borrowed Rs. 40,000 under a registered mortgage deed, dated 14-7-43 executed by them in favour of late Buchiramaiah and defendants 1 to 3. Buchiramaiah is the father of defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5. The 3rd defendant was the wife of the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant died pending the suit and defendants 6 to 9 were added as her legal representatives. It is alleged in the plaint that several payments were made towards the debt and that they were endorsed on the mortgage bond. The interest stipulated in the mortgage bond was Rs. 0-10-0 per cent per mensem, compound. But it is claimed that the plaintiffs are agriculturists and that the debt had to be scaled down under Madras Act IV...
Soorneedi Sathiraju and ors. Vs. Batchu Venkata Rao,
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1965
Reported in: AIR1966AP154
Kumarayya, J. 1. This Letters Patent appeal arises out of I.A. No. 1610 of 1951 on the the of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kakinada and raises a short point involving the interpretation of Section 8(2) of the Madras Agriculturists Belief Act (IV of 1938). The question is whether the reduction to a proportionate extent of the liability of the mortgagors by reason of the purchase with the leave of the court of a part of the hypotheca by the mortgagee in court auction in execution of a simple money decree shall be deemed to be payment to the creditor by the debtor within the meaning of Section 8(2} to be taken into account for invoking the principle underlying the said sub-section. Justice Krishnaswamy Naidu, by the impugned order, has answered this question in the negative. Hence this appeal.2. To appreciate the point, a brief statement of facts may be expedient. The appellants and their father mortgaged three items of property under a mortgage dated 18-4-1924 in favour of the mortgage...
J. Shamdas Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1965
Reported in: [1967]19STC412(AP)
ORDERSharfuddin Ahmed, J.1. The short question that requires determination in this tax revision case is whether the levy of sales tax on zarda under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) is according to law.2. The assessee is a partnership concern having three places of business in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. They are general merchants who deal in general goods, cotton yarn etc. In regard to their turnover of Rs. 24,538.40 representing the sale of zarda which is an Urdu word for 'chewing tobacco', they were subjected to sales tax for the assessment year 1961-62, i.e., for the period from 1st April, 1961 to 31st March, 1962. The assessee objected to the levy of tax on zarda on the ground that zarda is a tobacco product and it falls under item 7 of Schedule 5 of the Act. The Commercial Tax Officer, however, did not accept that contention. The matter was carried in appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes who held that as ...
Raj Lingam Vs. Somanna (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1965
Reported in: AIR1967AP7
(1) The defendant is the appellant. This appeal on his behalf arises out of O. S 30/1 of 1954, suit instituted by the respondent Somanna for possession of one third share in S. No. 157 situated in the northern side or in the alternative for the recovery of O S Rs 685 being the consideration of the real sale thereof. (2) The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that he sold one-third share in S No. 157 to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 685 (O. S.). The sale-deed was kept with one Minka Rajanna, as the purchase amount was not paid to him, with instructions that as soon as the purchase amount was paid, the sale-deed should be handed over to the defendant. The defendant did not pay the amount, but somehow managed to get the sale-deed from Minka Rajanna and dispossessed the plaintiff in 1954. The defendant in his written statement admitting the sale transaction, pleaded that he said the consideration and got possession of the land from the plaintiff. He also stated that the sale d...
Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh Vs. D. Bhadraiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1967AP75
(1) These are four appeals against acquittal of the four accused for contravention of the Essential Articles (Price Control) Order, 1963, made under R. 125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, for not prominently displaying on a special board, a list of essential articles held by him for time to time in stock for ready delivery and the past and present prices of the articles at which he proposes to sell them, in terms of Para. 4 of that order. The accused in each case pleaded that he had not so displayed it, but stated that he was not aware of the rule and, therefore, he did not exhibit the price lists. The Magistrate acquitted them on two grounds, namely, that under R. 141 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, it is essential that individual notices of the promulgation of the order must be served and (2) that since there is no date mentioned for the commencement of the order, the order had not come into effect.(2) In my view, both these grounds are untenable. On the first ground, it is...
T.V. Lakshmojirao Vs. Somavarapu Venkatappaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966AP292
Manoher Pershad, J.1. In this second appeal (revision) by the first defendant the short point falls for consideration is whether he is responsible for the damages claimed by the plaintiff, the respondent herein for malicious prosecution. The trial Court held that the plaintiff respondent has failed to prove that the report given by the first defendant was without any reasonable and probable cause or out of malice. Accordingly it dismissed the suit. The appellate Court held that the first defendant launched the prosecution falsely and maliciously without any reasonable and probable cause and decreed the suit. In order to determine the point in question I have to refer to the facts of the case.2. The respondent is a ryot owning both inam and sen lands at Narrukullapadu in Tiruvuru Taluk. There were disputes between him and the village karnam. He filed a suit against the Zamindar and the Slate and obtained a decree for grant of patta. The first defendant who is the Revenue Inspector and t...
Public Prosecutor Vs. D. Bhadraiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-1965
Reported in: 1967CriLJ316
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. These are four appeals against acquittal of the four accused for contravention of the Essential Articles (Price Control) Order, 1963, made under Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, for not prominently displaying on a special board, a list of essential articles held by him for time to time in stock for ready delivery and the past and present prices of the articles at which he proposes to sell them, in terms of Para. 4 of that order. The accused in each case pleaded that he had not so displayed it, but stated that he was not aware of the rule and, therefore, he did not exhibit the price lists. The Magistrate acquitted them on two grounds, namely, that under Rule 141 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, it is essential that individual notices of the promulgation of the order must be served and (2) that since there is no date mentioned for the commencement of the order, the order had not come into effect.2. In my view, both these grounds are untenable. On t...
M. Amritlal Vs. P. Srinivas Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1967AP48
Venkatesam, J.(1) This appeal is by the judgment debtor Morya Amritlal against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Khammam in C.M.P. No. 65 of 1959 in O.S. No. 12 of 1958 on his file. (2) The short facts are as follows: One P. Srinivas Rao (hereinafter referred to as the decree holder) sued Amritlal in O.S. No. 12 of 1958 for recovery of Rs. 26,885-9-2 on the foot of a promissory note for O.S. Rs.18000/- and that was subsequently decreed as prayed for. Even before the suit was decreed, the decree-holder obtained an interim injunction on 14-7-1958 restraining the judgment debtor from alienating his immoveable properties i.e. three houses in Khammam Municipality and some others. The suit was decreed on 31-12-1958 and on the same day the order of injunction previously passed was made absolute. The judgment debtor notwithstanding the injunction order, alienated the three houses in Khammam under two registered sale deeds, Ex. A-3 dated 31-3-1959 for Rs.3,800/- and Ex. A-4 dated 31-3...
Gopal Kashiah Vs. State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966AP180; 1966CriLJ649
ORDERJaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This revision challenges the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to commit a case which is tried by him under Section 251-A Cr. P. C. without recording the evidence by adopting the procedure prescribed for committal under Section 207-A. Cr. P. C.2. Mr. Sarma's contention is that in a ease which is initially tried as a warrant case under Section 251-A on a Police Report, if the Magistrate conies to the conclusion that it is a case to be tried by the Sessions Court, he should commit it under Section 347 Cr. P C. only by adopting the procedure under Section 251-A by recording the evidence of all the witnesses. Section 347 Cr. P C. is in the following terms:'Section 347 (1): If in any inquiry before a Magistrate, or in any trial before a Magistrate, before signing judgments, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session or High Court, and if he is empowered to commit for trial, he shall commit t...
Kondaveti Gurunath Reddy Vs. V. Seshaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1966AP331
Basi Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal under section 116A of the Representation or the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from the order of the Election Tribunal of Andhra Pradesh dated January 10, 1964, in Election petition No. 81 of 1962, whereby the election of the Communist candidate, Kondaveti Gurunath Reddy, to the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh from Chinnakondur constituency of Nalgonda District at the General Election held in February 1962, was set aside. A further prayer in the Election petition that the Congress candidate, Konda Lakshman Bapuji should be declared to have been duly elected, was however rejected. The Election Petition was filed by two voters of the constituency by names, V. Sesbaiah and G. Anantha Reddy, and to the Election Petition the three candidates who had contested the election, namely, Kondaveti Gurunath Reddy, Konda Lakshman Bapuji, and Gummakala Narayan Reddy who stood on the Congress, Communisl and Swatantra tickefs, were impl...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »