Andhra Pradesh Court February 2002 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.
Narsi Reddy and ors. Vs. Rami Reddy Gopaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD129; 2002(3)ALT290
Dubagunta Subrahmanyam, J.1. Plaintiffs in OS No. 10 of 1995 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool filed this revision petition.2. During the evidence of DW3, the witness produced two documents, which were marked as Exs.X1 and X2 by the trial Court. The order of the trial Court in marking those two documents as Exs.X1 and X2, is challenged in the present revision petition. The suit is filed for declaration etc., relating to immovable property and the defendants are contesting the suit. On the application filed by the defendants, the Court issued summons to the witnesses DWs.2 and 3 to appear before the Court and give evidence. While giving evidence, the witness DW3 produced two documents. As per the recitals in those documents, the parties to the suit executed two separate agreements in favour of the village elders named in the documents to settle the dispute between the parties. Those agreements, which can be merely called as arbitration agreements, are executed by the parti...
Burra Ellaiah Vs. Burra Ramaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD225
Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. In this second appeal the plaintiff in OS No. 764 of 1980 on the of the District Munsif, Karimnagar, challenges the reversing judgment in AS No. 35 of 1987 on the file of the District Judge, Karimnagar.2. It is the case of the appellant herein that himself and the father of the respondents by name Venkaiah are brothers, he purchased the share of his brother-Venkaiah in Sy.Nos. 127, 195 and 196 admeasuring Ac.3.16 guntas, Ac.0.20 guntas and 0.18 guntas respectively under an unregistered document dated 18-5-1971. According to him, his brother-Venkaiah and the respondents herein executed that document. It is his further case that on the basis of the said document he was issued a pattedar passbook in respect of the said lands and thereby he has been enjoying the rights of owner to the exclusion of the defendants. It is asserted that he has been paying the land revenue for these lands. Complaining that the respondents have been interfering with his possession and enjo...
G. Rajender Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALD113; 2002(5)ALT289
1. One Gaddam Narayan Reddy of Ambaripet Village, Kaddam Mandal, Adilabad District was served with a notice dated 29-3-1994 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 ('the Act' for brevity) as to why action should not be taken against him for allegedly encroaching the Government property admeasuring Ac.8-29 Gts in S.No.199 of the said village. Without filing any explanation to the said show-cause notice, Narayan Reddy approached the Government by way of filing a general revision petition and requested for stay of eviction. The Government were very liberal and by its order dated 19-4-1994, granted stay and advised the Collector to send remarks. After receiving remarks from the Collector, it appears a notice was sent to the said Narayan Reddy who, by that time, was no more.2. By that as it may, the Government issued Memo No. 30428/Asn.II(3)/94-9, dated 6-12-1999 vacating the interim orders placing reliance on the report of the Distri...
Vejju Rama Mohan Rao Vs. Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD753
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, in the instant writ petition, seeks a mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not allowing the service benefits of leave encashment for 240 days and 20 months Gratuity consequent on his retirement from service as contrary to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Rc No. 33842/95-C3 dated 7-11-1996 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to pay the service benefits to the petitioner together with interest at 12% p.a. from 1-4-1996 till the date of payment. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as under. 2. The petitioner while working as Supervisor in the 2nd respondent Cooperative Bank at Eluru retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-3-1996. According to the service rules existing at the time of petitioner's retirement, he is entitled to leave encashment for 180 days and Gratuity for 15 months. While he was in service the 1st respondent addressed a letter dated 4-1-1996 to the 2nd r...
The R.D.O. and anr. Vs. K. Sathaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002AIHC3327; 2002(3)ALT389
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated 14.7.2000 made in writ petition No.5848/99.2. The respondents herein were the petitioners in the said writ petition. In the writ petition, they sought implementation of the alleged patta said to have been given to them assigning 4.00 acres of land (2 acres each to the petitioners) of Kapra Village, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District comprised in Survey No.199/1 vide Lr. No.B/1861/92, dated 2.6.1993 of the Mandal Revenue Officer and Lr. No. B1/4204/93, dated 29.10.1993 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.3. Opposing the writ petition, the appellant authorities have filed counter affidavit. In the counter filed by them, they have claimed that the writ petitioners' names did not appear in the revenue records and that the claim of the writ petitioners that proceedings were issued assigning the ...
Revenue Divisional Officer and anr. Vs. Kasula Sathaiah and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALT389a
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 14-7-2000 made in Writ Petition No. 5848/99.2. The respondents herein were the petitioners in the said writ petition. In the writ petition, they sought implementation of the alleged patta said to have been given to them assigning 4.00 acres of land (2 acres each to the petitioners) of Kapra village, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District comprised in Survey No. 199/1 vide Lr. No. B/1861/92, dated 2-6-1993 of the Mandal Revenue Officer and Lr. No. B1/4204/93, dated 29-10-1993 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 3. Opposing the writ petition, the appellant authorities have filed counter-affidavit. In the counter filed by them, they have claimed that the writ petitioners' names did not appear in the revenue records and that the claim of the writ petitioners that proceedings were issued assigning ...
V. Srinivas Prasad and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3318
ORDER1. Criminal Petition No.558 of2001 is filed by A1 to A3 and criminal Petition No.662 of 2001 is filed by A4 to A6 in C.C.No.21 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur to quash the proceedings in the said C.C.2. Since both the petitions arise out of the same C.C., they are being disposed of by this common order.3. The case of the prosecution is that A1 is the son and A2 is the daughter of A3. A3 and A4 are co-employees. A5 is the wife of A4 and A6 is the father of A5. One V.Lakshmi Narasamma, N.Lakshmi Raja Kumari (defacto complainant) and A1 and A2 became partners and started finance business under the name and style of Messrs. Jaya Lakshmi Financiers at Guntur with its office in the house of A1 and A3. Though A3 was not a partner in the firm, he used to look after the business of the said firm. The partners of the firm i.e., A1, A2, defacto complainant and V.Lakshmi Narasamma, who is the grand-mother of A1 and A2, with an intention to star...
Balmukund Gupta and anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD552; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)552; 2002(1)ALT464; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)464
ORDER1. On the basis of a report dated 7-5-2001 given to the Inspector of Police, Tukaram Gate P.S., alleging that A and B parties mentioned therein are creating trouble with unsocial elements and are disturbing peace and tranquility in the locality at Kranti Venkateswara Apartments situated a Teachers Colony, Maredpally, Secunderabad, the learned Special Executive Magistrate registered a case in M.C.No.290 of 2001 and issued preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. on 4-5-2001 by directing the parties mentioned therein to appear before him on 28-5-2001. This petition is filed to quash the said proceedings in M.C.No.290 of 2001.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners who are shown as 'B' party in the M.C. proceedings is that Pushpa Gupta, wife of the first petitioner, along with her daughter Smt.Sudha Gupta and grand son Vineet Gupta purchased three flats in the 5th floor bearing Nos.501 to 503 in Kranti Venkateswara Apartments by paying the entire sale consi...
indira Seva Sadan, Hyderabad Vs. Government of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALD184; 2002(3)ALT312
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan, C.J. Heard Sri Ravikanth Somisetti, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A. Venkata Ramana, the learned Government Pleader, for the respondents. 2. Indira Seva Sadan has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents not to either appear for or defend any of the contemnors viz., 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents at the expense of public funds. 3. On behalf of the 1st respondent, Deputy Secretary to Government, Law Department, has filed counter-affidavit stating that directing a public servant to do a particular thing or to act in accordance with the directions of the Court is a command to State. A command to a State, in fact, is a command to those who are officially in-charge and responsible for conducting the affairs of the State. Further 'State' is a person within the meaning of Order VIX, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and as such, it is susceptible to the liabilities contemplated by it and cannot...
Syed Hyder HussaIn Vs. State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALD(Cri)339; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)289; 2002CriLJ3602; II(2002)DMC390
ORDERRamesh Madhav Bapat, J.1. The petitioners herein are A-1 to A-5 in C.C.No.210 of 1997. The said case is pending in the Court of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The alleged offences are under section 498-A I.P.C. and sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.2. On the strength of the complaint filed by the defacto complainant in the Court of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell, CID. Hyderabad. It was finally investigated by the Inspector of Police, Women Police station. Hyderabad and the charge sheet was filed.3. The 1st Petitioner happened to be the husband of defacto complainant. The 2nd petitioner is the father of 1st petitioner herein. The 3rd petitioner is the mother of 1st petitioner herein. The 4th petitioner is the brother of the 1st petitioner herein.4. The learned counsel Mr. E.V.Bhagiratha Rao appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein submit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »