Andhra Pradesh Court January 2004 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.
Maldar Mahaboob Sab and ors. Vs. Allabaksh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP193
ORDER1. Though the matter is listed under the caption 'For Admission', with consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the main Civil Revision Petition itself is disposed of by this order. 2. Heard both sides. 3. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 12-11-2002, passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Adoni, Kurnool District, rejecting the application in I.A.No.125 of 2002 in O.S.No.38 of 1965, filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the decree in O.S.No.38 of 1965 specifying the entitlement of the share of each of the petitioners and the respondents therein, in the suit schedule properties. 4. The petitioners are the defendants (brought on record as legal representatives of defendant No-3) and the respondent is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for partition. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit. 6. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff filed the suit for partit...
G. Chandraiah Vs. A.P. Social Welfare Residential School, Teaching and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2004AP227; 2004(2)ALT345
Devinder Gupta, C.J.1. This is an application filed by Sri G. Chandraiah, Advocate, seeking expunction of remarks, made by the Division Bench of this Court, in Paragraph No. 12 of the judgment, dated 11th September 2002, rendered in Review W.A.M.P. No. 1292 of 2002 and Writ Appeal No. 16 of 2001.2. Paragraph No. 12 of the aforementioned judgment of the Division Bench, dated 11th September 2001, reads as under :'In the review affidavit it is indicated that the government is probing into the matter regarding the fraud and collusion between its Standing Counsel and some government employees and members of the writ petitioner-Association. We hope and trust that the government will sincerely probe into the matter and take appropriate action against the guilty persons as expeditiously as possible so that such incident may not recur again in some other departments of the Government.'3. We have gone through the record. We have also gone through the review affidavit.4. The aforementioned remark...
Kadiam Venkata Ratnam Vs. Nidadavolu Municipality
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD154; 2004(5)ALT9
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri CCS. Sastry Counsel representing the appellant-plaintiff and Sri. Dommalapati Srinivas, the Counsel representing the respondent/defendant. The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the Courts below had preferred the second appeal. The appellant-plaintiff, Kadiam Venkata Ratnam filed a suit O.S. No. 282 of 1983 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Kovvur for declaration that the enhancement of tax from Rs. 653-04ps. to Rs. 1,312-37 ps. per half year for Assessment No. 894 for the schedule building is null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-the Nidadavole Municipality represented by its Commissioner Nidadavole from collecting the enhanced tax and for costs of the suit. The learned Principal District Munsif, Kovvur by its judgment dated 12th day of August, 1987 had dismissed the suit with costs and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff carried the matter by way of an appeal A.S. No. 52 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kowu...
Md. Osman Amjad Khan Vs. K. Ganga Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-02-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD33; 2004(4)ALT698
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Nazeer Khan representing the appellant and Sri Neelakanta Reddy representing Sri Ravikiran Rao the Counsel representing the first respondent.2. The second appeal is preferred by the second defendant in the suit being aggrieved of the judgments and decrees made by the Courts below. The first respondent in the second appeal, as plaintiff, instituted a suit O.S. No. 11 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif, Adilabad for declaration and recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction to remove the huts specified and for costs of the suit,3. The Court of first instance, after recording evidence, had arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff proved his title to the suit property and hence he is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the second defendant alone had preferred appeal since the first defendant did not contest the suit at all.4. The appeal preferred in A.S. No. 20 of 1989 on the file of District Judge, Adilabad w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›