Andhra Pradesh Court May 1998 Judgments

M. Vemanarayana Vs. Sakku Bai and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(4)ALT422

J. Chelameswar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order in O.E.P.No. 7 of 1992 in O.S. No. 88 of 1984 dated 6-7-1996 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madanapalle.2. The respondents herein filed the abovementioned O.E.P., under Order 21 Rules 11, 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the arrest of the petitioner-judgment-debtor for the realisation of the arrears of the maintenance amount awarded in O.S. No. 88 of 1984. The respondents happened to be the wife and the minor child of the petitioner herein who obtained a maintenance decree against the petitioner. The abovementioned O.E.P., was ordered and the petitioner herein was directed to be arrested and committed to the Civil Prison. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.3. The respondents in support of their petition filed certain documents marked as Exs.A-1 to A-19 which are the revenue records pertaining to certain Survey Nos. of land which ...

Mettu Damayanthi and Others Vs. A. Malla Reddy

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. The appellants were the opposite parties in O.P. No. 1064/1995 on the file of the Hyderabad District Forum and the respondent in this appeal was the complainant in that O.P. 2. The following are the un-disputed facts. 3. The complainant entered into an agreement of sale on 1.8.1994 with the appellants for purchase of Flat No. 1-C in the Ground Floor of Kalyan Mansion situated at Somajiguda in Hyderabad and he paid the entire consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the appellants under that agreement. The appellants agreed to complete construction and hand over possession of the Flat to him within five months from the date of agreement i.e. by 1.1.1995. Clause 2 of the agreement made it clear that the consideration amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- did not include the amount for lift facilities, electric transformer and vehicle parking place. Even though the five months period was over, the appellants did not complete the construction and hand over possession of the Fla...