Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
Taluri Seshaiah and anr. Vs. M. Narayan Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1967AP19; 1967CriLJ19
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.(1) This application seeks to have the respondent committed for contempt of the orders of this Court passed on 5-5-1965 in C. M. p.n. 4013/65 in W. P. 1068/63. It appears that in C. M. P. No. 2916/65 in W. P. 1068/63, Gopalakrishnan Nair, J. by an order dated 31-3-1965, directed the Tashildarn, Burgampad, to release the cattle belonging to the petitioners on condition that the petitioners should furnish security to the satisfaction of the Tashildar for a sum of Rs. 4000 within two weeks from that date. During the vacation, the petitioners filed an affidavit stating that pursuant to the orders passed on 31-3-1965 they had given security before the Tashildar on 14-4-65 that in spit of it, the Tashildar is not releasing the cattle and that uptill then 19 cattle have died due to starvation. They have also stated that on 9-4-1965, they furnished a security bond for Rs. 4000 in the Tashil Office, giving their own patta land of Ac. 31.00, assessed at Rs 92.50, but that the...
Mudunuru Raghunatharaju Vs. Kasim Khan and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1966AP152
Manohar Pershad, J. 1. This appeal is on behalf of the judgment-debtor and is directed against the order of the executing court D/-18-10-63 reducing the upset price as prayed by the decree-holder. We were very doubtful as to whether this was an appeal able order. We therefore asked the learned counsel to satisfy us on this point. The learned Counsel relying on the case of Venkataswami vs. Nagayya, AIR 1925 Mad 1142 contended that the appeal was proper and maintainable. We do not agree with the contention of the Counsel. AIR 1925 Mad 1142 was a case where the question was whether a second appeal was entertainable. No doubt in considering that question there was a reference to Order 21, Rule 66 and Section 47 of the C.P.C. But there is nothing in this decision to show that it was held therein that any petition filed under Order 21, Rule 66 and the decision given thereon would be an appeal able order, As the order passed by the lower court does not either relate to execution, satisfaction...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›