Andhra Pradesh Court August 1993 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.
Mokkapati Harihara Prasad Vs. Nelakuditi Nageswara Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)ALT608
ORDERS. Dasaratharama Reddy, J.1. The petitioner in this case is the appellant in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1444 of 1992, which has been dismissed by a separate order pronounced just now. The facts which led to the filing of Civil Revision petition are the same as stated in the C.M.A. The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition against I.A. No. 1455 of 1992 granting permission to the respondents to file the suit. under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The petitioner without moving the Court below for revocation of the lower and inviting decision from the Court rushed to this Court and filed the Civil Revision Petition against I.A. No. 1455 of 1992 granting permission to the respondents to file suit under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code. The ex parte order in I.A. No. 1455 of 1992 cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as 'case decided' within the Explanation to Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code as introduced by the amendment Act of 1976 and...
Mohd. Yousuf Ali and ors. Vs. Ghousia Begum Alias Anwar Pasha and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)ALT51
Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J.1. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a suit for partition of plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties into two equal shares and separate possession of one such share in their favour. Out of that half share they claimed that the first plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share, the second plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share and the first defendant being entitled to the remaining half share.2. The partition was sought in respect of matruka properties left by late Mohammad Hasan Ali (hereinafter referred to as 'Hasan Ali'3. The suit was contested by the first defendant claiming all the plaint schedule properties as his exclusive properties. Defendants 2 to 4, on the other hand, claimed item No. 6 of plaint 'A' schedule and item Nos. 1 to 3 of plaint 'B' schedule under an oral gift. During the pendency of the suit I.A.No. 541 of 1982 was filed by the plaintiffs for deletion of item Nos. 4 and 5 of plaint 'A' schedule property. The learned First Additional Judge, City C...
Mokkapati Harihara Prasad Vs. Nalakuditi Nageswara Rao and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)ALT76
S. Dasaradha Rama Reddy, J.1. The appellant, who is the defendant in O.S.No. 293 of 1992 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, preferred this appeal against order of injunction in I.A.No. 1457 of 1992 dated 15th September, 1992, restraining him from making further construction in the plaint 'A' schedule property till the disposal of the suit. The suit was filed by N. Nageswara Rao and V. Umamaheswara Rao, residents of Medikonduru in a representative capacity under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code against the appellant, Akkaiah Choultry and two others for declaration that A- Schedule property consisting of Choultry situated on 250 Square yards of site at Medikonduru village is a charitable trust bearing the name of Akkaiah Choultry and also for direction to the appellant, who is the de facto trustee, to render account of the income of the trust from B-Schedule property consisting of 10 acres 75 cents situated in Medikonduru village and to remove the appellant from the ma...
Special Tahsildar (L.A) Vs. Smt. D. Venkamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)ALT375
V. Sivaraman Nair, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Jangareddigudem in West Godavari from the judgment in Writ Petition No. 10181/91 dt.29-1-1992 of the learned Single Judge of this Court. The question which arises for consideration is whether it is open to a landholder to claim the benefit of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, on the basis of a Judgment of this Court in an appeal filed by another landholder in respect of a notification, by which, the lands of both were acquired. The facts in brief are the following:2. An extent of Ac.18-07 cents of land in Survey No. 396/2 and 397/2-b was notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act briefly referred to as the Act on 3-1-1980. Ac. 13-30 belonged to one D. Seetharama Raju and the remaining extent belonged to the petitioners in W.P.10181/91. After completion of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, the present appellant passed the award on 31-10-1981 assessi...
Netyam Venkataramanna and Others Vs. Mahankali Narasimhan (Died)
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-1993
Reported in: AIR1994AP244; 1994(1)ALT185
1. This is appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of the suit O.S. No. 43 of 1968 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ananthapur. The first plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 8-4-1965 and during the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died and the present appellants were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 4. Subsequeunt to the filing of the appeal, the sole respondent-defendant died and respondents 2 and 3 S. Indira and G. Jayalakhshmi were brought on record as L.Rs. of the first respondent. The averments in the plaint and the written statement are extracted in extenso in the judgment of the trial court. It would be unnecessary to produce the elaborate pleadings. It would be sufficient for the purpose of this appeal if a gist of the plaint and the written statement are set out.2. The plaint schedule lands belonged to the defendant. They were originally inam lands and after the abolition of inams, ryotwari patta was gran...
Government of India Vs. Sukhlal Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)457; 1994CriLJ418
ORDER1. The petitioner-complainant filed a complaint under Section 72 of the Mines Act and the Regulations framed thereunder for prosecuting the accused-respondents, which was numbered as C.C. No. 64 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chennur. Then the accused-respondents filed a petition - Crl. M.P. No. 1005 of 1990 under Section 197, Cr.P.C. contending that they are employees of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited which is a Government undertaking, that as such they are public servants as defined under Clause (12) of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, that therefore, prior sanction of Government to prosecute them u/S. 197, Cr.P.C. is necessary and that therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant who is the revision petitioner herein, is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 2. On a consideration of the material on record, the learned Magistrate found that the accused-respondents who are the employees of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., ar...
Food Inspector, Guntur Vs. Bavirisetty Hanumantha Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)441; 1994CriLJ1145
ORDER1. The accused was charged under sections 7(v), 2(ia) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in C.C. No. 92/90 on the file of the II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Gurazala. After full trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, State preferred this appeal. 2. The accused was acquitted of the charge inter alia for non-compliance of the mandatory provision under S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which ground is seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. As could be seen from the impugned judgment the notice under S. 13(2) was sent to the accused by the Director of Local Health Authority, Hyderabad, under Ex. P13. the prosecution only produced the postal receipt Ex. P12 evidencing despatch of Ex. P13 which is the notice under section 13(2) of the said Act. Considering Exs. P12 and P13 the lower Court found that though the prosecution proved the despatch of Ex. P13 it failed to prove service of Ex. P13 on the accu...
K. Badrinarayana Vs. Kasula Lakshmidevamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-18-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)ALT454; I(1994)DMC488
Bhaskar Rao, J.1. The first defendant in the suit is the petitioner herein. This revision is filed by him against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Hindupur allowing LA. No. 536 of 1991 filed for addition of certain property in the suit for partition.2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed a suit for partitioning the suit schedule properties. Written statements were filed by the petitioner herein and other defendants. Subsequently, I.A. No. 536 of 1991 was filed by the plaintiff contending that the wife of the first defendant purchased certain property out of the funds of the joint family and that therefore, the same property should be included in the suit schedule property for the purpose of partition. Therefore it should be added to their joint family property in the suit. The defendant filed the counter stating that the property is purchased by his wife and not from out of the joint family property funds. The Lower Court allowed the application o...
Sriramula Ramachandram and Others Vs. Sriramula Bhoodamma and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-1993
Reported in: AIR1994AP79
ORDER1. The petitioners question the order of the learned District Munsif at Karimanagar in I. A. No. 112 of 1989 in I. A. No.410of 1988 in O.S. No. 684 of 1982 dated 8-8-1990 dismissing the said application made under O.1, R.10 of the Civil Procedure Code for impleading them as respondents 8 to 14 in 'the above case'. It is important to note that the said I.A.No. 112 of 1989 was preferred by the petitioners themselves because the order of the learned District Munsif discloses some confusion regarding the said fact.2. The brief facts of the the case as could be culled out from the order of the learned District Munsif are as follows:--Respodents 1 and 2 herein laid O.S. No. 684 of 1982 for partition. The 1st defendant in the said suit one Durgaiah died. Petitioners herein are his legal representatives. The 2nd plaintiff in the suit filed I.A. No. 191 of 1984 under R. 4 of 0.22 of the Civil Procedure Code on 24-10-1983 for bringing on record the petitioners herein as the legal representa...
M.V.S. Bhaskar Vs. Gutha Balaji Naidu and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-17-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)ALT427
ORDEREswara Prasad, J.1. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed LA. No. 962/91 for amendment of the cause title by correcting the name of the 2nd respondent (2nd defendant) as 'Etukuru Babu Naidu' stating that the name of the 2nd respondent was wrongly mentioned as 'Gutta Babu Naidu', by mistake. This application was rejected by the Court below holding that the proposed amendment will change the nature of the case and the cause of action of the suit, while observing that it is open to the petitioner to file a fresh suit against the proposed party.2. Sri P.S. Narayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under a wrong impression and by mistake, the petitioner filed the suit by naming the 2nd respondent wrongly, as he was not aware of his name and he wanted the name to be corrected by amending the cause title and that the Court below ought to have allowed the amendment. Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the am...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »