Andhra Pradesh Court December 2003 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.
Gedela Lalitha Kumari Vs. Bonumahanthi Neelakantham and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD315; IV(2004)BC447
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. S.R. No. 1092 of 1997 against the Order of the District Munsif, Saluru dated 12.3.1997.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- with interest due from the respondents under a document described as 'simple mortgage deed' dated 10.2.1994. When the plaintiff filed the suit before the lower Court, an objection was raised regarding the plaintiff relying on the document for recovery of the money and the lower Court 'returned the plaint on the ground that the suit was filed on the basis of a document not admissible under law which is insufficiently stamped and unregistered.3. It was further observed that the plaintiff has to pay the stamp duty and penalty on the document. Unless the stamp duty and penalty on the document is paid, it is not proper'and correct to number the suit. The plaint was returned for payment of stamp duty and penalty within seven days.4. The plaintiff being aggrieved b...
Dandu Sridhar Vs. Pothamashetty Padma Priya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD840
E. Dharma Rao, J. 1. Aggrieved of the order dated 17.10.2003 passed in I.A. No. 414 of 2003 in O.P. No. 2 of 2003 by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, filed under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissing the OP for want of jurisdiction to the petitioner - husband to file the O.P., the original petition filed by the husband -petitioner herein under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the minor, was returned to him for presentation before the proper Court, the husband petitioner preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal contending that the Court below has erred in entertaining the application under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act filed by the respondents herein i.e., mother and maternal grand parents of the minor particularly when the Original petition was filed under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards A...
Gopisetti Reddy and anr. Vs. Makam V. Balaramaiah Gupta and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD562; 2004(3)ALT562
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri K.V. Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellants.2. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the Courts below had raised the following substantial question of law in the present second appeal. 'When once it is admitted that the wall originally belonged to the joint family, whether the right to light and air claimed by the appellants-plaintiffs be negatived especially in the light of Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882'.3. The learned Counsel made elaborate submissions relating to the respective pleadings of the parties and also had explained in detail the scope and ambit of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 and Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882; The learned Counsel also on facts had pointed that the Court of first instance, while appreciating the evidence available on record, had recorded findings in detail that if the relief is not granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the house would be as dark as in the night, but how...
Karampudi Krishna Murthy (Died) Per Lrs. and ors. Vs. Pulipati Subbala ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)ALD350
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for parties.2. There is a short question involved in this appeal on which the fate of the appeal rests therefore, we are confining ourselves to only one question which is basically a question of Law. But before that necessary facts will have to be mentioned.3. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 are the appellants. They were defendants in Original Suit No. 4 of 1976 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madanapalle, which was filed by the plaintiff who is first respondent in the appeal. He filed the suit for partition of the property. The partition was sought as an alternative relief and the basic relief sought for was the declaration of plaintiff's title to the plaint B-Schedule land and for possession. The relations between the parties was not disputed. According to the plaintiff himself, he had himself filed earlier a suit for partition, which was O.S.No. 64 of 1954. A preliminary decree was passed and a final decree on the basis of a compromise ente...
Gainedi Gajapathi Rao Vs. Velal Indiramanamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALT281
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Padala Vijay Kiran, the counsel representing the review petitioner and Sri Subhashchandra Bose, the counsel representing the first respondent.2. In view of the facts and circumstances explained, the delay in filing the review CMP is hereby condoned, and C.M.P. No. 21012/2003 is ordered accordingly.3. Both the counsel made elaborate submissions on the merits and demerits of the review CMP. The petitioner in the review CMP filed the same as against the judgment and decree made in S.A.No. 692 of 1994 dated 25-2-2003 on the ground that the second appellant died, about three years ago on 8-3-1996 and no steps were taken by the appellants and thus the appeal stands abated. As the first appellant being the wife of deceased-second appellant cannot plead ignorance of the death of her husband and hence the order of remand made by this court would cause irreparable loss and consequently a request is made to review the said judgment and decree made in S.A.No. 692...
Jonnalagadda Ramreddy and ors. Vs. Nookala Narasimha Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALT629
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard both the counsel.2. The substantial question of law, which had been argued at length in the Second Appeals is as hereunder:What is the effect of not formulating the points for consideration by the lower appellate court, as required by Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C?3. There is no controversy between the parties that the Appellate Court had recorded the issues and had discussed the, evidence on record but had not framed the points for consideration. The counsel for the appellants with all vehemence had contended that though concurrent findings had been recorded, by virtue of non-framing of points for consideration, the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court are vitiated and are liable to be set aside. The counsel representing the respondent, on the other hand, had placed strong reliance in Gorella Durga Vara Prasad v. Indukuri Rama Raju, : 2002(2)ALT589 (D.B.) and had contended that almost all the grounds raised in the appeal had been dealt with and hence, a mere o...
Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority Vs. Patnana Seetharamanjaney ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD500; 2004(2)ALT337; (2004)IILLJ213AP
K.C. Bhanu, J.1. These appeals are directed against a common order dated 31.7.2002 made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. 14619 of 2000 and batch affirming the award dated 4.12.1998 made by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No. 357 of 1995 and Batch filed under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). For better appreciation of the facts, the parties are referred to as arrayed before the Industrial Tribunal.2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present appeals may be delineated as follows:3. The workmen claimed to have joined the services of the Management as NMRs in the Engineering Department of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (for short, 'VUDA'). The Management retrenched their services by orally refusing to allow them to work. The Management terminated the services of the workmen without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. Therefore, the petit...
Saramekala Anjaneyulu Vs. Kurra Sambrajyam
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD846
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. This is a revision filed against an order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. Defendant wanted the plaint to be rejected on the ground that sufficient Court-fee had not been paid by the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of a document, which is a sale deed. The value of the property, according to the sale deed, is Rs. 12,00,000/-. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming one-seventh share in the property. He prayed in the suit:'(a) to pass a decree that the registered sale deed dated 13.6.2003, registered Document No. 344/03 at SRO, Mangalagiri, executed by Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of 7th defendant is Sham, nominal and collusive, null and void and it cannot restrict the rights of plaintiff in respect of 1/7th share in favour of her father's half share of undivided plaint schedule property;(b) for cancellation of the document;(c) to partition the plaint schedule propert...
K. Agi Reddy Vs. Uppal Kalan Municipal Council and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD517; 2004(2)ALT279
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. Petitioner who was elected as Councillor for Uppal Kalan Municipality from Ward No. 21 in the elections held during the month of March, 2000 was suspended by the impugned proceedings dated 29-11-2003 for a period of two months under Sub-section (5) of Section 51 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). Questioning the same the present writ petition is filed contending that the said order passed by the Chairman of the Municipality is contrary to the provisions of Section 51 of the Act, and without passing any order under Sub-section (3) of Section 51 and without there being any resolution by the Council the petitioner was placed under suspension, which is arbitrary and illegal.2. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Municipality made available the records pertaining to Council Resolution Register, Volume-6 from June, 2003 to November, 2003. In the said register the impugned order passed by the Council is at page No. 291. It is recorded...
Shaik Habeeb Basha Vs. the State by Station House Officer, Gudibanda P ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALD(Cri)578; II(2004)DMC91
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment in S.C.No.540 of 1998 dated 16-03-2000 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, wherein accused No.1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 498A I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C.2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows:-The appellant herein who is arrayed as accused No.1 is no other than the husband of the deceased Shaik Reshma(herein after referred to as 'deceased'), accused No.2 is mother of accused No.1 and accused No.3 is brother of accused No.1. The marriage of the deceased with the appellant took place eight mo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »