Andhra Pradesh Court June 2004 Judgments

Darsi Ragamma, W/O. Late Rangaiah Upparapalem and D. Arun Kumar, S/O. ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(4)ALD488

ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J. 1. In these two writ petitions the petitioners and the respondents are same. First petitioner is mother and second petitioner is minor son at the relevant time. They are aggrieved by orders of the Government passed in two separate orders dt.7.9.1993 and 17.9.1993. Therefore, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. One Rangaiah, husband of first petitioner, applied to Tahsildar for assignment of Government land. Petitioners alleged that the Tahsildar assigned the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 in S.No.1508/2 and Acs.1.08 in S. No. 1508/6 after conducting necessary enquiry. The land was statedly brought under cultivation. The assignment was made by order dt.27.2.1975. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that after lapse of fourteen years, fifth respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was dismissed. The same was confirmed by the first revisional authority, Commissioner for Land Revenue. However, the Government entertai...

Nagireddy Lakshmi and ors. Vs. Nagireddy Nagaraju and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2005AP17; 2004(5)ALD162

V. Eswaraiah, J. 1. The appellants are the legal representatives of plaintiff who filed the suit on O.S. No. 41/88 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Chodavaram. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the defendants in the said suit. The plaintiff Nagireddy Govinda @ Govinda Rao filed the said suit for partition of plaint A, B, and C schedule properties into four equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot three such shares to the plaintiff and for possession of the same after evicting the defendants, and their men there from and for future profits. The suit was decreed preliminarily on 25.9.1991 by the trial Court for partition of plaint `A', `B' and `C' schedule properties except Items 1 and 3 of Lot I of Plaint `A' schedule, into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and for possession of the same to the plaintiff after evicting the defendants and their men. The future profits shall be determined on a separate application to be filed by the plaintiff. 2....

Vachala and ors. Vs. V.R. Kumar and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: I(2007)ACC895; 2006ACJ2098; 2004(5)ALD30; 2004(5)ALT460

ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Appellants, who are the widow and children of Dorairaj (the deceased), who died due to an accident caused by an auto trolley belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, have preferred a claim petition for Rs. 1,50,000/-. Respondents filed counters contesting the claim petition. In support of the case of the appellants, first appellant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents but Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked by consent. The Tribunal, having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto belonging to the first respondent, passed an award for Rs. 1,35,000/- but accepting the contention of the second respondent that it is not liable to pay compensation because the deceased was not travelling in a goods vehicle, exempted the second respondent from its liability. Aggrieved by the Tribunal, exonerating the second respondent from...

K.K. Mohan Rao Vs. Narra Ranga Rao

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(4)ALD814; 2004(5)ALT58

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two CRPs., are connected with each other. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.2. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 53 of 2000 in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent for recovery of a sum of about Rs. 6,00,000/-. The respondent was served with summons on 1-3-2000. Thereafter, he was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 03-11-2000. The petitioner filed E.P. No. 148 of 2002 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. When the notice was served upon the respondent, in the E.P., he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree. Since there was delay of 708 days in filing the application, he filed I.A. No. 3395 of 2002, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court condoned the delay and allowed I.A.No. 3395 of 2002, through its order, dated 13-6-2003. Consequently, the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, was numbe...

K. Shiva Goud Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(5)ALD301; 2004(5)ALT326

ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. The issue involved and the points that arise for consideration in all these writ petitions is same as such all are being decided by a common order.2. The factual backdrop of these cases relevant for the purpose of present proceedings may be stated thus:3. Petitioners are all excise contractors 'who have participated in the auction to sell arrack in retail in respect of the shops notified in Nizambad District and they being the highest bidders, necessary licences were granted under the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Arrack Retail Sale Special Conditions of Licences) Rules, 1969. After obtaining licences to sell arrack, petitioners have started business but due to extremists threats they were forced to close down their business premises and have written about surrendering of their licences to the authorities due to the extremist activities they were unable to do business and the authorities failed to provide any protection for the sale of arrack. In view of the same, th...

Aitha Gopalakrishna S/O. Ramamurthy Vs. Miryala Venkata Radha Krishna ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2004AP542; 2004(4)ALD662; 2004(5)ALT447

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. This CRP is filed against the order dated 03-09-1998 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, in E.P.No. 57 of 1989 in O.S.No. 334 of 1961. 2. The petitioner is the 3rd party in O.S. No. 334 of 1961. The suit was initially filed in the Court of District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, by late Miryala Suryanarayana, the father of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, for the relief of declaration of title and delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. It was filed against as many as 18 defendants. Respondents 3 to 9 are the legal representatives of the 12th defendant, by name, Vuriti Narayana Rao. The suit was decreed on 19-11-1965.3. After the decree became final, obviously, after appeal and 2nd appeal, respondents 1 and 2 filed E.P.No. 52 of 1989. Ultimately, the possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to them on 15-07-1998.4. The petitioner filed the E.P. under Rule 99 of Order 21 C.P.C., alleging that the suit schedule proper...

N. Sreeramudu, S/O. N. Narayana Vs. Kum. N. Lahari, D/O. N. Sreeramudu ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(4)ALD722; 2004(5)ALT434; I(2005)DMC566

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the father of the minor child Kum. N. Lahari, aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 12 of 2000 dated 16th day of March, 2001 on the file of Family Court, Kurnool.2. Kum. N. Lahari, the minor daughter represented by her natural guardian-mother Smt. N. Saraswathi filed this suit O.S. No. 12 of 2000 on the file of Family Court, Kurnool for enhancement of maintenance payable to the plaintiff by the defendant from Rs.250/- per month as directed in M.C. No. 19/96 on the file of the said Court to Rs.1500/-p.m. and for the costs of the suit under Section 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 read with 7(1)(f) of Family Courts Act, 1984. The next friend and the guardian of the respondent-plaintiff minor daughter is the wife of the appellant-defendant. The marriage between the mother of the plaintiff and the appellant-defendant had taken place on 2.7.1988 at Kurnool as per Hindu rites and custom and thereafter...

Sompalli Venkatarathnam and ors. Vs. Kilari Lingaiah and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(4)ALD558; 2008(2)ALT598

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This matter is placed before the Court on a note put up by the office, in relation to maintainability.2. The appellants filed a suit claiming various amounts towards damages. The appellants are the owners of the lands in various survey numbers in Chellapanaidupalli Village of Nellore District. It is their case that the lands in neighbouring survey numbers, belonging to the defendants, were converted into fish and prawn tanks and thereby the lands of the appellants were rendered unfit for cultivation. The Trial Court rejected the plaint through its order dated 17-3-2004, on taking the view that the causes of action for the individual appellants herein are different, and single suit by all of them cannot be maintained. It was also pointed out in the order that, if individual claims are taken into account, the corresponding suits have to be filed in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter,3. The appellants filed the C.M.A.,...

Indian Bank Vs. Mocro Electronics and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2005AP328; 2005(4)ALT612

P.S. Narayana, J.1. Indian Bank, Main Branch, Hyderabad, hereinafter referred to as 'Bank' in short, as plaintiff filed O.S. No. 335/98 on the file of II Member, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings-cum-VII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents/defendants for recovery of Rs. 6,82,360/- with future interest @ 23% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization with costs. It is not in controversy that Rs. 50,000/- was paid prior to the filing of the suit by way of cheque which was honoured and subsequent to the filing of the suit an amount of Rs. 5,10,100/- had been paid. The trial Court dismissed the suit directing each party to bear their own costs on 21-8-2001 and aggrieved by the same, the Bank had preferred the present C.C.C.A.Submissions of Sri Siva Kumar:-2. Sri Siva Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the appellant/plaintiff/Bank had taken this Court through the pleadings of the respective parties and also explained the con...

Mrs. M. Suvarna Vs. V. Pentaiah

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member: 1. The appellant in F.A. No. 987/2003 is the complainant in C.D. No. 532/2000 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Plot No. 6 admeasuring 220 sq. yards situated at Raghavendranagar locality, Uppal. She entrusted this plot to the opposite party, who is Maistry, for construction of four rooms, one hall, two kitchen rooms, three attached bathrooms and one single bathroom and it was agreed that the construction with all the materials like teak wood shutters with glasses, window grills, flooring with Bethamacherla in all rooms and marble flooring in hall, etc., and both parties entered into an agreement dated 17.2.1999 with the terms and conditions according to which the opposite party should hand over the fully constructed house within three to four months and the complainant herein paid Rs. 3,80,000/- out of Rs. 4,00,000/- on different dates through cheques...