Andhra Pradesh Court June 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.
Alla Basavapunnareddy Vs. Kalaga Krishnayya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966AP260
Narasimham, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the subordinate Judge, Tenali, in O. S. No. 72 of 19S6. The plaintiff is theAppellant. The suit has been filed against an adverse claim order made in I. A. 140 of 1958 in O. S. 138 of 1952.2. The facts relevant to this appeal may be briefly stated: The subject-matter of this suit is an extent of ac. 3-16 cents in S. Nos. 29 and 30-C of Velicherla Agraharam. The said extent was attached prior to judgment in O. S. 138 of 1952 by defendants 1 and 2 as the property of the 3rd defendant, Kamepalli Kotaiah. That was a suit for money alleged to be due from the 3rd defendant. The suit was decreed and in execution of the said decree defendants 1 and 2 brought the land to sale and purchased the same in Court auction for Rs. 6,030 on 10-1-1935. It is the case of the auction purchasers that they had taken possession through Court. I have to -state in this context that the record of the original attachment and the sale certificate were not ...
Manikam Reddy and ors. Vs. Yamani and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1966AP63; 1966CriLJ248
ORDERAnantanarayana Ayyar, J. 1. This is a reference by the learned Chief City Magistrate-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad recommending that orders of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Hyderabad West, dated 17-10-1963 be set aside and that the Munsif Magistrate be directed to proceed with the enquiry pending before him in M. C. No. 24 of 1963 after issuing preliminary order as contemplated under Section 145(1) Or. P. C. 2. The relevant facts are as follows: Amar Jabari and another (hereafter referred to as party No 1) filed a petition disclosing material contemplated under Section 145 Cr. P. C. before the competent Executive Magistrate (hereafter referred to for convenience as the Revenue Divisional Officer). He called for report from the Police and passed an order dated 11-10-1958 for attachment. Subsequently, parties produced material before him and he passed a final order on 11-12-1958 declaring the first party to be in possession of certain properties the second party who were...
Pisipati Punnakotiah (Died) and ors. Vs. Kallapalli Kolikamba and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1967AP83
(1) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, in O. S. No. 69 of 1956 by which he dismissed the suit on a mortgage executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff, Ex. A-5, dated 27-1-1955, for Rs. 7,500. The plaintiff is the appellant.(2) The plaintiff filed the suit claiming interest at 12 per cent per annum simple, though it was provided under the mortgage-deed that the amount was payable with compound interest at 1 per cent per mensem with annual rests. The plaintiff impleaded the prior mortgagee as the 5th defendant. The said mortgagee had obtained a preliminary decree on 30-1-1956 on his mortgage, dated 14-3-1952. The plaintiff also impleaded the 3rd defendant in the suit as a purchaser in execution of the money decree obtained against the 1st defendant-mortgagor in S. C. 417 of 1953 on the file of the District Munisif's Court, Vijayawada. He had purchased the property subject to the first mortgage in favour of the 5th defendant and the...
Vissamseth Chandra Narasimham Vs. Ramdayal Rameswaralal and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-11-1965
Reported in: AIR1966AP134
ORDERNarasimham, J.1. This is a petition seeking a revision of the order of the District Munsif, Vijayawada, in O. S. 793 of 1955 which is a proceeding for passing a decree in terms of the award filed under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It is seen that under Rule 5 of the rules framed under the Arbitration Act of 1940, applications under Section 14 of the Act shall be numbered and registered as suits and that explains the order under revision having been passed in O. S. 793 of 1955.2. The learned Munsif rejected the application in the view that that Court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree in terms of the award. The other points, which fell for determination in the proceeding, were deemed unnecessary in view of the said finding.3. The question that arises in this revision petition is whether the view taken by the learned Munsif that the Vijayawada Court has no jurisdiction is correct. Sri Parthasarathi for the petitioner has contended that the learned Munsif failed to e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›