Andhra Pradesh Court October 1968 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.
Yerrakula Kotayya Vs. Yerrakula Anjamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1533
ORDERAnantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. In M. C. No. 74 of 1966 on the file of the Additional Munaif-Magistrate, Bapatla, Yerukala Kotiah was the sole respondent I shall refer to the parties hereafter in their denomination in the trial Court, Yeru. kula Anjatnrna as petitioner No. 1 and her daughter by respondent viz., petitioner No. 2 (represented by petitioner No. 1 as guardian) prayed foe an order of maintenance under Section 488, Criminal P. C. against the respondent at the rate of Rs. 45/p. m. for petitioner No. 1 and Sa. 30/, per menaem for petitioner No. 2. The respondent did not deny the relationship but raised various contentions denying the right of the two petitioners foe maintenance and disputing the rate of maintenance. Both sides let in evidence.2. The petition was filed on 24-9-66. Even before the petition was filed, on 24-8-1986 the respondent had executed a registered settlement deed settling certain property on his minor son by petitioner No. 1. In that document he provided a...
itta Narasimha Rao Vs. Akula Mahalakshmayya
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-25-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ697AP
Venkatesam, J.1. The facts in this revision petition are few and beyond dispute. The decree-holder (respondent before me) filed an execution petition under Order XXI, Rules 46 and 48, civil Procedure Code, for attachment of the bonus of the petitioner (judgment-debtor) declared as due to him by the Andhra cement Company, Ltd., Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to as 'the company '), for the year 1965, by the issue of a prohibitory order. It was resisted by the Judgment-debtor on the ground that bonus is not liable to attachment under Section 60(1)(h), civil Procedure Code. The Judgment-debtor is admittedly an unskilled workman, getting a monthly remuneration of Rs. 164 including all allowances. As per the starting orders of the company, he is not entrussed with any clerical or technical work, requiring exercise of powers of intellect or skill, and his services are utilized only for doing manual labour. It has been found by the learned District Munsif. and it has not been disputed before...
Sri Konathala Venkata Ramana and Budha Appa Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-24-1968
Reported in: [1969]24STC367(AP)
Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.1. This batch of writ petitions challenges the constitutional validity and vires of Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, as amended by Act 5 of 1968 (hereinafter called 'the Act').2. Taking the facts in W.P. 2842 of 1967 as typical of the batch of writ petitions, it appears that the petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the Act, is a firm carrying on the business of commission agents in jaggery at Anakapalle in Visakhapatnam district. Numerous small agriculturists in the villages near about Anakapalle grow sugar-cane on small extents of land. This sugar-cane is converted into jaggery and brought to the shop of the petitioner for sale on commission. The petitioner, it is stated, arranges for the sale of the jaggery in the presence of the agriculturists or their representatives, by auction in the market place and passes on the sale price to the agriculturist-principals after appropriating the agent's commission. It is averred that non...
Jaishankar Gowd (by Guardian) Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR206(AP)
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.1. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, has referred the following question for our opinion, viz. :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the following properties were correctly included in the estate of the deceased as property passing or deemed to pass on his death under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act : 1. House property at Feelkhana. 2. House property at Kachiguda. 3. Lorry property at Kachiguda ' 2. The facts as ascertained from the statement of the case are as follows. The deceased, one Lingampeta Raja Gowd, died on 8th January, 1954, leaving two daughters, Manikamma and Tajbai, both married, the latter to one Somalingam. Tajbai and Somalingam had a minor son, Jaishankar Gowd, who is the person accountable for the estate of the deceased, under the Estate Duty Act (hereinafter called ' the Act').3. The Assistant Controller assessed the estate of the deceased on August 31, 1958, determining the net principal value of th...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Sarolla Gopala Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-1968
Reported in: 1971CriLJ536
Mohamed Mirza, J.1. The Slate has filed this appeal against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari acquitting the respondents from the charges for which they were prosecuted. It is alleged by the prosecution that since the Panchayat elections there are two factions among the Harijans of the village Nandanurivaruvu. A.I is said to be the leader of one party and he also is a master of the Samithi School in the village. The accused are also intercalated. According to P.W. 1 he was asked by A-1 to contest for the Panchayat Elections that took place some two years prior to the occurrence for the Harijan eat to which he agreed. But as the elections approached A.I is said to have told him that he was not on the Electoral hat and therefore he would set up A-5 as a Harijan candidate to which P. W 1 did not agree.. Thereafter P.W. 1 and the people of his party set up Mahankali, the husband of the deceased woman, but he was defeated. The immediate motive appears to be th...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Jandhyala Pullamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ276
Kondaiah, J.1. This appeal by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh is from the judgment of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kovvur in C. C. No. 2074/65, acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 62(1)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act, holding that the document Ex. P-l appears to be a settlement deed but not a sale.2. The brief and material facts that gave rise to this appeal lie in a short compass: A-l and her son-in-law had executed Ex. P-l on 12-12-1959 purported to be a 'dakhal' or settlement deed in respect of schedule lands relating to the hereditary archakatwam service, in favour of accused 2 & 3 for a sum of Rupees 7,000/- and got the document registered at Kovvur before P. W. 3, the then Sub-Registrar, on payment of stamp duty of Rs. 105/-. P. W. 3, considering that the document in question was a plural transaction, partly a sale and partly a settlement, within the meaning of Section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act, had referred the matter for clarif...
Penumatcha Neelakanteswaraju and ors. Vs. Jaddu Mangamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1970AP1
P.J. Reddy, C.J.1. The question that has been referred to us by a Bench of this Court consisting of Satyanarayana Rao and Obul Reddi, JJ., is whether Section 56 of the Andhra pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Abolition Act') applies to a case where the dispute contemplated by that section arose before the notification. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent's advocate, Sri K. Narasimham, that this question does not arise because it is said that a Bench of this Court had earlier in Chigurupati Venkatasubbiah V. Ravi Punnayya, (1957) 2 Andh WR 204 held that a suit for possession and mesne profits is exclusively within the jurisdiction of a civil Court to decide. In our view, a perusal of the plaint would show that the question referred is incidental to the main question relating to the title of the suit properties.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit on 25-4-1959 for recovery of the plai...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›