Andhra Pradesh Court September 1967 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.
Kuppu Damayanthi Vs. C. Rama Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP62
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) were married under the Special Marriage Act, 1872, on 24-2-1953. before the Registrar of Marriages at Visakhapatnam. They appear to have lived together as man and wife for some time prior to the marriage too. and the appellant had admittedly borne the respondent a son before the marriage. The marriage did not meet with the approval of the parents of the respondent. His father never got reconciled to the marriage and made persistent efforts to get the marriage dissolved by trying to induce the appellant to agree to a divorce but his efforts bore no fruit. Whether it was due to the strenuous efforts of the respondent's father to separate husband and wife or due to the alleged waywardness of the parties the marriage itself was not a great success. The appellant and respondent do not appear to have lived together continuously for any considerable length of time at any stage but they undoubtedly lived together off and o...
Behbood Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Secretary to Government Ministry of Home ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP106
Narasimham, J.1. The writ Appeal is preferred against an interlocutory order in the writ petition by Krishna Rao, J., dismissing on record Prince Mukarram Jah Bahadur alias Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan, H. E. H. Nizam the VIII as the legal representative of late Nawab the VII, who died on 24th February, 1967 and who was the 2nd respondent in the writ petition. The writ petition itself is filed by Nawab Mir Bahbood Ali Khan and Nazni Begum (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) questioning the orders of the Central Government refusing to give consent to sue Nawab Mir Osmam Ali Khan, H. E. H. Nizam the VII, ex-Ruler of Hyderabad under Section 86 read with Section 87-B of the C .P. C. The Respondents in the Writ Petition are: (1) The Secretary to Govt. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi and Nawab Mir Osman Ali Khan, H. E. H. the Nizam the VII, the ex-Ruler of Hyderabad, who has since died.2. The petitioners prayed for the quashing of the orders of the Central Gove...
Katragadda Ramayya and anr. Vs. Kolli Nageswararao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-25-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP250
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.1. Manohar Pershad, J. (as he then was) and Kumarayya, J., after hearing fully this Letters Patent Appeal, preferred against a judgment of Sharfuddin Ahmed, J., referred the case to a Full Bench because not only a question as to whether Sec. 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Limitation Act') controls Section 48, Civil P.C. but also in addition, other questions of law and fact are involved in the case. Before we set out the questions of law upon which we are required to express an opinion, it is necessary to set out briefly the relevant facts. Katragadda Rajaratnamma, whose legal representatives are the appellants herein filed a suit, O. S. No. 32/35 in the District Judge's Court, Masulipatnam on the foot of a promissory note dated 28-4-1932 and obtained a decree on 26-2-1937 for recovery of Rs. 4484-11-2 together with interest and costs against defendants 1 and 2, Sunkara Ramakotayya and Kolli Seshayya personally and against...
Lakkaraju Somunaidu Vs. Majji Gangamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP192
ORDER1. This is a revision on petition directed against an order of the District Munsif, Chodavaram given on 5-6-1965. The essential facts are that the 1st respondent, who is the auction-purchaser, filed an application under O.21, R. 97, Civil P.C. for removing the obstruction which the petitioner before me and others were causing in delivering the property which the 1st respondent had purchased in a court auction. 2. The defence set up was that he was not bound by the proceedings in pursuance of which the 1st respondent purchased the property in court auction. He contended that the property exclusively belongs to him and not to respondents 2 and 3, who are the judgment debtors, although they are his sons, His further contention was that previously an application to remove the obstruction was made by the auction-purchaser in E. A. No. 37 of 1964 and since it was dismissed as not pressed. it operates as constructive res judicata. Consequently, the second petition for the removal of obst...
N. Shabir HussaIn and ors. Vs. Forest Range Officer Represented by Pub ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-20-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ539
ORDERKondiah, J.1. Petitioners have been convicted by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Markapur in C.C. No. 735 of 1965, under Sections 35 and 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act read with Rule 10 of the Timber Transit Rules and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200-00, Rs. 100-00 and Rs. 100-00 respectively, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days. The trial Court also ordered confiscation of the forest produce which was seized from the accused by the forest authorities. On appeal, the Additional Sessions judge, Kurnool confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence, this revision.2. The case for the prosecution is as follows:That on 24.8.1965 at about 1 A.M., at Dornal at the junction of Kurnool-Guntur and Srisailam road, the accused were found illicitly transporting green teak, roughly dressed M.Os. 1 to 394 by a lorry A.P.Q. 2245, without a valid permit, that A-1, who claimed to be the owner of the forest goods, showed a permit Ex. P-1 to P.W. 1, the Forest Range Of...
Madhavarapu Sriramamurthy Vs. Mamidala Subbamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP215
1. The respondent in this Civil Revision Petition filed an application under O. 33, R. 1, for leave to sue in forma pauperis. She claimed that two promissory notes executed by the defendant in favour of her husband for Rs. 4,400 and Rs. 4,000 on 21-9-1959 and 22-7-1960, respectively, were endorsed in her favour for collection. After giving credit for part payments made on 21-11-1960 and 20-2- 1961 in respect of the first promissory note and on 15-5-1962 and 2-1-1963 in respect of the second promissory note, an amount of Rs. 6,813.89 was still due on the two promissory notes. She claimed that she was not possessed of any property and that therefore leave should be granted to file the suit as a pauper. The defendant opposed the application on various grounds. So far as the first promissory note dated 21-9-1959 is concerned, it was stated that the last part payment pleaded being on 20-2-1961, the suit was clearly barred by limitation. The defendant further pleaded that the endorsement for...
Konda Anthiah Vs. Madan Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP211
1. The short question that fails for determination in this C. R. P. is with regard to the construction to be placed on the powers of General Power of Attorney stated to have been appointed by Konda Aruna (the second respondent) in O. P. No. 19 of 1962. The General Power of Attorney, Fateh Mohammad, is the first respondent and the petitioner in the original petition. Madan Lal is the person in whose favour the agreement has been drawn. Madan Rao filed the petition under Ss. 9(1) and 8(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying that the dispute between the parties regarding failure to supply fire wood as agreed to may be referred to a named arbitrator for settlement. His case was that he had entered into an agreement with first respondent who holds the power of attorney on behalf of the second respondent whereunder the agent undertook to supply fire-wood for Rs. 6, 400 within a specified time. The contention is that the respondent failed to supply the fire wood and refund the amount in spit...
Ravi Nagabhushanam Vs. Neti Gopala Krishna Murthy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-08-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP184
ORDER1. This is a revision petition directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali passed in I. A. No. 668 of 1965 in O. S. No. 55 of 1962. It arises in the following circumstances.2. The petitioner before me filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of an amount of over Rs. 9,000 on the foot of a promissory note. He filed an application under Order 38, Rule 5, C. P. C. and the property was conditionally attached under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5. After-wards under Order 38, Rule 6, the order of attachment was made final. I am told that the suit has since been decreed.3. During the pendency of the attachment and the suit, the respondent filed an application, I. A. No. 1362 of 1964, seeking permission of the Court to release from the attachment the first item of the property comprising of 1 acre and 13 cents of wet land in order to pay other pressing debts. This petition was ordered on 4-1-1965 permitting a private sale of the property for the purpose of discharging the de...
Pydimarri Venkateswarlu Vs. Pydimarri Jalamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP318
ORDER1. This revision petition arises out of I. P. 12/61 on the file of Sub-Court, Kavali, an insolvency petition filed by the respondent against the petitioner. 2. The allegations in the petition are that the petitioner executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 3950 on 27-10-1959 in favour of the respondent comprising of Rs. 3500 paid by the respondent in cash before the Sub-Registrar and the balance of Rs. 450 subsequently taken by the petitioner from the respondent. It was agreed at the time of execution of the promissory note that the petitioner will not alienate the schedule mentioned property, Contrary to that the petitioner alienated the schedule mentioned property in favour of several persons including one Satyanarayana and others. The respondent believes it to be true that the property was also sold in auction several times. The petitioner except the house at Kanigiri and the same is worth Rs. 12,000 and he owes debts to the tune of Rs. 16,000 to Rupees 17,000 to the credito...
R.D. Suryanarayana Rao Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Acquis ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1969AP55
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.1. The question before this Full Bench is whether the office is right in demanding Court-fee on the interest payable under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on compensation payable for the compulsory acquisition of land under the said Act. 2. The Government filed an appeal against compensation awarded to the respondents at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. yd. by the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, on 20-7-1964 in O. P. No. 61/62. In that appeal, the respondents preferred cross-objections claiming enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,779.38 ps. together with 15% solatium. Interest on the enhanced amount was also claimed, but court-fee on the amount of compensation and solatium alone was paid. The High Court office relying on an observation by a Division Bench 'of this Court consisting of Satyanarayana Raju, J., (as he then was) and Venkatesam, J., in Dodla Mallaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, : AIR1964AP216 called upon the Cross-objector to include interest also in his val...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »