Andhra Pradesh Court March 2003 Judgments

Pendyala Subrahmanya Sastry Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Ac ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(3)ALD358

ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. The petitioner's mother was absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land ad measuring Ac.1.02 cents comprised in Sy.No. 193/1 situated at Gudivada Town in Krishna District. The land was acquired by following due process of law as contemplated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') and an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the first respondent herein on 31-8-1988 awarding an amount of Rs. 4,62,625/-. While publishing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, invoking the powers under Section 17(4) of the Act, enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with and possession was taken on 11-11-1982. 2. The petitioner's mother sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada as O.P.No. 55 of 1989. The same is pending. Be that as it is, the petitioner's mother died on 27-5-1996. The petitioner, therefore, filed the instant writ pe...

Vadde Anjanappa Vs. Vadde Hanumantappa and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(3)ALD619; 2003(3)ALT527

Dalava Subrahmanyam, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff filed the appeal against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 68 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Anantapur in dismissing the appeal and confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No. 181 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Kalyandurg in dismissing the suit.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The appellant-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 181 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Kalyandurg for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land in S.No. 7/4 admeasuring Ac. 5.10 cents situated at Tumukunta Village of Kundurpi Mandal. The plaintiff contended that he purchased the suit land from the first defendant under an agreement of sale dated 14.10.1970 and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the property continuously and perfected his title by adverse possession. The plaintiff is a landless poor person and...

Aktar Begum Vs. Syed Azmathullah

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(4)ALD498

ORDERT. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The revision petitioner is a tenant. The respondent herein through his General Power of Attorney filed the eviction petition against the tenant on the premise of wilful default and subletting the premises in violation of the terms of the tenancy. The revision petitioner-tenant resisted that application on the ground that she used to pay the rents to the General Power of Attorney as a landlord who collected rents without issuing the receipts while assuring that on the return of the landlord from the United States of America, he would pass necessary receipts getting them signed by the landlord. On the factual matrix, the learned Rent Controller after having appreciated the evidence was of the view that the tenant committed the default. Having been aggrieved by the said order dated 13-7-1994 passed in R.C. No. 531 of 1988 by the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, the tenant filed the appeal in R.A. No. 534 of 1994. The learned Additional Chief Judge, City...

Baratam Seethamma and ors. Vs. Bora Chandravathi

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(4)ALD866; 2003(5)ALT556

P.S. Naraya, J. 1. Heard Sri Subhramanya Narsu, Counsel representing the appellants-plaintiffs and Mrs. Bhaskara Laxmi, Counsel representing the respondent-defendant.2. At the out set the Counsel representing the appellants had raised a question relating to the non- consideration of the oral evidence in toto by the appellate Court while reversing the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance. At paragraph 52 of the appellate Court's judgment it was observed as follows:'Hence, the oral evidence, in this case, is not helpful to either party, having regard to the foregoing reasoning, observations and findings.'Several other questions also have been elaborately argued by both the Counsel touching the merits and demerits of the matter. I had gone through the findings recorded by the appellate Court and except referring to PW-7 the other oral evidence recorded by the Court of first instance had been left untouched. No doubt, the learned Counsel for the respondent-defendant made a se...

Adapala Chinna Subbaiah (Died) and ors. Vs. Nagendra Hanumantha Rao an ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(2)ALT743

ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order and decree, dated 02-12-2002, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, disposing of the application in I.A. No. 427 of 2002 in O.S. No. 37 of 1985, filed under Order-41 Rule-25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Petitioners are defendants and respondents are plaintiffs. The suit was filed for recovery of possession. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit. 4. Initially, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. The matter was carried in appeal in A.S. No. 67 of 1995 and the lower appellate court having gone into the entire evidence on record remanded the matter for fresh disposal with a direction to the trial court to frame an additional issue. 5. It is to be noted that though the suit was filed for recovery of possession, both the parties have relied on independent wills. The will relied on by the plaintiffs is dated 05-12-1979 and the will relied o...

Valluri Sambasiva Rao and anr. Vs. Motamarri Veeraiah Gupta (Died) by ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(3)ALD585; 2003(3)ALT100

ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. This revision petition is filed challenging the order and decree dated 11.9.2002 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chirala in I.A. No. 103/2002 in O.S.No. 7/1997. 2. By the impugned order, the Court below allowed the I.A. filed by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 10 and Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. and thereby permitted them to come on record as plaintiffs 2 to 7 and also to carry out the consequential amendment. 3. For convenience, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiffs and the defendants. 4. The brief facts are that the deceased plaintiff No. 1 filed the suit for recovery of money on the strength of a registered mortgage deed. The Court below passed the preliminary decree on 2.3.2001. Subsequently, the plaintiff died. Thereafter, the legal representatives of the 1st plaintiff filed I.A. No. 102/2001 for passing of the final decree. After the death of the plaintiff, since his legal representatives were not brou...

Siddiram and ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Singoor Project

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(4)ALD870; 2003(4)ALT243

ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Nanda, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.2. There cannot be any dispute that a person whose land is acquired and who did not make an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference to Civil Court may approach the Land Acquisition Officer for payment of compensation as enhanced by the Civil Court at the instance of other claimants. Such applications are to be made within three months from the date of the award of the Court. Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 28A of the Act is categorical and leaves no doubt that the period of three months within which an application to the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector is to be made shall be reckoned by excluding the time taken for obtaining the certified copy of the award of the Civil Court. The respondent obviously lost site of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 28A of the Act and mis-directed himself in rejecting the petit...

Royal World Exims and Agencies and anr. Vs. Karur Vysya Bank Limited a ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(5)ALD22

ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J. 1. The petitioners by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the action of the Principal District Judge, Guntur in entertaining the suit - OS No. 89 of 2002 filed by the 1st respondent-Bank against the petitioners and others for declaration of Award dated 23-5-1998 passed by the Banking Ombudsman in complaint No. 233/97-98 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 131 of Negotiable Instruments Act and for setting aside the same, and for a consequential direction to the defendants 1, 2 and 6 to pay a sum of Rs. 24,37,154/- to the plaintiff with interest. 2. The facts in brief are as under:3. The 1st petitioner was awarded sub-contract by M/s. Hyderabad Agricultural Co-operative Association, Hyderabad (HACA) for supply of building material for Social Welfare Hostels. The HACA issued a demand draft bearing No. 707841, dated 17-12-1996 for a sum of Rs. 13,07,135/-drawn on State Bank of India, in favour of 1st pe...

Konidela Madhusudhan @ Madhu Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)823; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)476; II(2004)DMC220

ORDERS.R.K. Prasad, J.1. This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment rendered in Cr. A. No. 71 of 1999 by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool on 31.8.2000 whereby the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner who is A.1 by Trial Court i.e., Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool in C.C. 227 of 1998 for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C has been confirmed.2. It is alleged by the prosecution that A.1 along with his parents who are A.2 and A.3 demanded P.W. 1 the wife of A.1 for additional dowry three months after the marriage of P.W. 1 with A.1 and they have harassed her by frequently scolding and beating her for getting dowry and the said torture has become unbearable. The petitioner - A.1 also underwent second marriage at Mahanandeswara temple at Nandyal on 7.2.1998 with one Bharathi. Thereupon the Lower Court framed charges under Sections 498-A against all accused and charge under Section 494, I.P.C. against the accused No. ...

P.R. Kasi Viswanathan Vs. M. Nakiulla Baig and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

C.P. Suresh, Member: 1. The unsuccessful first opposite party is the appellant before this Commission. 2. The facts in brief are that the complainant and the opposite parties were working in the Judiciary and they formed an Association to purchase vacant land for house sites and to allot them for the benefit of members of the Association. They were paying Rs. 20.50 ps. towards cost of the land every month. The opposite parties in their capacity as office bearers of the Association purchased the land from its owner in the name of a Real Estate Agent and though the complainant was requesting them to get the sale deed registered in his favour, they have failed to do so. The complainant thereupon approached the District Forum for refund of the amount. 3. The first opposite party filed its written version alleging that the complaint is barred by time, that the Judicial Employees of Chittoor with a view to have house plots at concessional rates formed into an Association and for registration...