Andhra Pradesh Court November 1974 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.
R. Mohana Rao Vs. Dy. Inspector-general of Police and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-1974
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ251AP
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police was placed under suspension on 19th June, 1967 and a disciplinary enquiry was started against him. The D.S.P. Bhodan was appointed as enquiry officer to hold the departmental enquiry. The petitioner was served with a memo of charges issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad District. The D.S.P. Bhodan conducted the enquiry without even securing some relevant records. The petitioner after protracted correspondence submitted his written explanation on 30th December. 1969. Thereafter the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry. Both prosecution and defence witnesses were examined. However, without waiting for the explanation of the petitioner the enquiry officer submitted his report to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police through the Superintendent of Police Nizamabad. On persuing the records the Deputy Inspector-General of Police noticed that the charges had been issued by the Superintendent of Police who was ne...
Chota Uddandu Sahib Vs. Masthan Bi (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-01-1974
Reported in: AIR1975AP271
Venkatrama Sastry, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant herein. This appeal arises out of the suit, for partition and separate possession of his 3/8th share filed by the appellant. The few facts, which are necessary for considering the respective contentions in this case are the following:--2. Plaintiff, the third defendant and one Pullu Saheb were brothers. Pullu Saheb married first defendant. As she bore no children he married the second defendant, who is no other than the brother's daughter of the first defendant 4th defendant is the son of the third defendant.3. Pullu Saheb died on 17-6-1957, within three years after his second marriage with the second defendant without any issues. He left behind A and B Schedule properties. Plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are entitled to 3/8th share each in the properties of Pullu Saheb, while his widows defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 1/8th share each in his estate.4. Plaintiff issued the notice on 13-6-68 to the defendants to partition the propert...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›