Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
K. Venugopala Rao Vs. Regional Transport Officer and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC1; 2004(5)ALD68; 2004(5)ALT511
Bilal Nazki, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the demand notice dated 25.2.1997, creating a demand for Rs. 61,250/- as tax and another Rs. 61,250/-as penalty for two quarters in between 31.3.1996 and 30.6.1996.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. During the hearing, the learned Counsel for petitioner confined his attack only to the tax and penalty imposed with respect to period from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.1996. He submits that the vehicle in question was hired by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) till 12.2.1996 and was covered by a stage carriage permit and from 13.2.1996 till the end of the quarter ending with 31.3.1996, there was neither permit nor a fitness certificate, therefore he was not liable to pay any tax, because the vehicle had to be deemed as not in use in terms of second proviso to Rule 12-A of A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1963.3. In the light of the arguments made by the learned Counsel for the petit...
Devavathi Namya and ors. Vs. Gurukul Trust and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD195; 2004(5)ALT418
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This revision is filed under Section 91 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order, dated 9-3-1998, passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Through the order under revision, the Joint Collector affirmed the order, dated 5-10-1989, passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners hereinunder Section 32 of the Act.2. Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust'), held vast extents of land in the outskirts of the city of Hyderabad. One such item is the land in Sy.No. 11, admeasuring about 360 acres, situated at Khanammet Revenue Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. One Mr. Saravathi Ramachander, an ex-serviceman, was engaged as the security guard by the Trust, for protection of its land in Sy.No. 111, about half-a-century ago. He was recorded as tenant in respect of abou...
V. Brahmachary Vs. Lakshminarayana
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD231
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. This civil revision petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 3.7.2003 in S.C. No.289 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.2. Petitioner is tenant of the respondent in respect of non-residential premises. Disputes arose between them. The respondent initiated proceedings to evict the petitioner and filed R.C. No.32 of 1998 before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The petitioner, in turn, filed O.S. No.5182 of 1997 in the Court of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for injunction against the respondent on the ground that latter was interfering with his possession.3. The respondent filed S.C. No.289 of 2002 for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,600/-representing the rents for the period September 2000 to August, 2001. The Trial Court decreed the suit. Hence, this revision.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of high-handed interference by the respondent, the p...
Balireddy Appalanarasaiah (Died) and ors. Vs. Balireddy Saddhu and ors ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD308
V. Eswaraiah, J. 1. These two appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment as the parties and dispute involved in both the appeals are one and the same.2. The Appellants No. l and 2 are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 38 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam and the said suit was filed for declaration of their title to the plaint schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The respondents herein are the defendants in the said suit O.S. No. 38 of 1986.3. The respondents herein filed suit in O.S. No. 289/86 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam for partition of the suit schedule properties shown as Schedules 'A' and 'B' properties.4. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 21-12-1992 dismissed the suit in O.S. No. 38 of 1986 and decreed the suit for partition in O.S. No. 289 of 1986.5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 38 of 1986 who are defendants in O.S...
Deddula Padmavathi, W/O. Vs. Maddala Srinivasa Rao, S/O. Venkata Ramai ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC9; 2005ACJ768; 2004(5)ALD228; 2004(6)ALT496
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Appellants who are the legal representatives of D. Rosaiah (Deceased), who died in an accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents, and examined two witnesses on their behalf as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. First respondent who filed a counter inter alia contending that since his lorry was insured with the 2nd respondent, it is the second respondent that is liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants, examined one witness as RW1 and marked Ex.X1 on his behalf. Second respondent, who filed a counter, inter alia, contending that since the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle, it is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants, examined one witness as RW2 and marked Ex.B2 on its behalf. The Tribunal having held that the ...
Manthrala Chandrakala and ors. Vs. Mandan Janakiram Singh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD156; 2004(5)ALT219
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This. CRP is filed against the order dated 23-2-2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Nalgonda, in 1A No.2493 of 2003 in an unregistered appeal. Through the order under revision, the learned District Judge, refused to condone the delay of 231 days, in presenting the appeal.2. The 1st respondent filed O.S. No.80 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda, against one Mantrala Ravinder Reddy, for the relief of recovery of possession of 154 sq.yards of land, or in the alternative, for payment of Rs.52,000/-, with interest at 12% per annum. According to him, he purchased the said plot from the sole defendant and subsequently, it was found that the plot was covered with road. During the pendency of the suit, the sole defendant died. The petitioners herein as well as Respondents 2 and 3 were brought on record as his legal representatives. Subsequently, the 4th respondent was also impleaded as defendant No.8. Through its judgment dated 7-11-20...
S. Ravinder Vs. G. Dasarath
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALD851; 2004(5)ALT217
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 4.3.2004 in I.A. No. 99 of 2004, which in turn was filed in I.A. No. 1794 of 2003 in O.S. No. 1000 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.2. The respondent filed the suit against the petitioner, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 17.7.2003. The respondent also filed I.A. No. 1794 of 2003 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 C.P.C. for a temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from alienating the suit schedule property. When the enquiry into I.A. No. 1794 of 2003 is in progress, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 99 of 2004 under Rule 3 of Order XIII read with 115 C.P.C. for rejection of the agreement of sale dated 17.7.2003 on the ground that it is neither registered nor properly stamped. The Trial Court rejected the I.A. through the order under revision, by taking the view that the admissibility or relevance of the document can...
Asifnagar Smashanaghat Committee and ors. Vs. Shaik Yousuf
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD32; 2004(5)ALT106
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The petitioners/ appellants moved the above applications for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to demarcate boundaries of the land in S.No. 22 paiki and the land in S.No. 24 of Asifnagar Village/Mandal, Hyderabad with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, Asifnagar Mandal after taking work memos from the Counsel representing the parties and to make local inspection and note down the illegal and unauthorized construction made by respondent/plaintiff in both these matters in S.No. 22 paiki during the pendency of the suspension application in the Appeal and pass such other suitable orders.2. Sri T. Ramakrishna Rao, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners/ appellants had brought to the notice of this Court that in both the suits I.A.No. 349/2000 and 350/2000 Commissioners were appointed only to note down the physical features and in fact the learned Commissioners made a request praying for directions relating to demarcation of the boundaries relating to th...
ippili Thirupathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)ALD479; 2004(6)ALT173
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. As the issue involved in all these revision petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioners herein are the third parties to the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and Rules, 1974 (for short 'the Act and the Rules').3. The factual matrix of the case in brief is as follows:4. The original declarant-late Kanugula Rammurthy filed a declaration under Section 8 of the Act. During the pendnecy of the proceedings, the original declarant died and thereafter his wife and children were impleaded as his Legal Representatives. Basing on the verification report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (Primary Tribunal) passed an order under Section 9 of the Act, dated 28-2-1987 by holding that the deceased declarant was holding surplus land equivalent to 0.5483 Standard Holdings. Thereafter, the lands of the petitioners and the ...
M. Nagamma Vs. D.A. Nathan and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2005AP69; 2004(6)ALD274; 2004(6)ALT516
Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. The appellant herein who is the unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the second appeal questioning the judgment and decree dated 2-12-2000 in A.S. No. 33 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gooty reversing the judgment and decree dated 19-6-2000 in O.S. No. 199 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gooty, Anantapur District.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter as they are arrayed in the suit.3. Originally the suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their men and agents from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be summarised as follows:5. Plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property consisting of poramboke open site and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since about 20 years. In the year 1983, she gave a representation to the P...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »