Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
Anand Chandra Panda and anr. Vs. Kishore Mohan Tripathy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALT38
Dharma Rao Elipe, J.1. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2000 passed in A.S. No. 42 of 1996 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.7.1996 passed in O.S. No. 131 of 1984 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Palasa, the unsuccessful defendants preferred this Second Appeal.2. The respondent herein filed the suit for perpetual injunction. The case of the respondent - plaintiff is that he is the exclusive owner of the property to an extent of Ac.1.85 cents in Sy. No. 233 admeasuring Ac.8.35 cents and joint patta was issued in the name of one Nityananda Panda, father of plaintiff instead of his name and pattedar pass book was issued in his name. Subsequently, he made an application on 11.8.1983 to the taluk office by paying the requisite amount for sub-division of entire land and for issuance of separate patta in his name, but though no action was taken he continued to enjoy the property in his own right. While so, the defendants ...
Samyuktha Cotton Trading Company Vs. Bheemineni Venkata Subbaiah and o ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2005AP1; 2004(5)ALD497; 2004(5)ALT534
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 58 of Order 21 CPC, by the claimant in execution proceedings, aggrieved by the rejection of the claim.2. The 1st respondent filed OS No. 265 of 1987 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, against Respondents 2 to 9, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,26,000/- with interest. The suit was decreed ex parte on 16-3-1994. Since the decree was not satisfied even after it became final, he filed E.P. No. 22 of 1995. During the course of execution, he got attached an extent of about Ac.2.00 of land, together with certain structures thereon, belonging to the 7th respondent herein, through orders of the executing Court, dated 28-11-1997. At that stage, the appellant filed E.A. No. 215 of 1998, under Rule 58 of Order 21 CPC, stating inter alia that the 7th respondent joined two other persons, by name, Chundi Venugopal and P. Venkata Prasad, and brought into existence a firm through partnership deed, dated ...
M. Lakshman and ors. Vs. V.T. Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALD154
L. Narasemha Reddy, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Rule 58(4) of Order XXI C.P.C. against the Order dated 30-7-2003 in E.A. No. 404 of 1995 in E.P. No. 25 of 1993 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District.2. The first respondent filed O.S. No. 287 of 1987 against Respondents 2 to 11, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by Respondents 2 and 3. The suit was decreed. The first respondent filed E.P. No. 25 of 1993. A sale deed is executed in accordance with the decree. At the stage of delivery of possession, the appellants filed E.A. No. 404 of 1995 under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C.3. According to the appellants, the property in question was held by late Dasarath, the father of Appellants 1, 2 and Respondent 4. It is their case that late Dasarath died intestate on 7-1-1983 and the property left by him was not partitioned. They state that Respondents 2 and 3, who are wife and son, respectively...
G. Ganga Reddy Vs. P. Madhavaiah
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALT448
ORDERS.R.K. Prasad, J.1. The tenant has preferred this revision petition against the order of eviction passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad in R.A.No. 149 of 1998. The jural relationship between the landlord and tenant is not in dispute. The landlord has contended that there was wilful default in payment of rents regarding the premises during August 1995 to November 1995 and the shop was required for his bona fide requirement to run business by his sons. The same is opposed by the tenant alleging that he has tendered the rents by way of demand draft as well as money order and he has not committed any default. The tenant has also resisted eviction that there was no bona fide requirement for the landlord to seek eviction. The IV Additional Rent Controller gave a finding that there was wilful default in payment of rents and there was no bona fide requirement for the landlord to claim the premises for his personal use and ordered eviction in R.C.No. 787 ...
S.M. Kumar Vs. the State of A.P. Represented by the Public Prosecutor
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD(Cri)561
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri C. Ramchandra Raju, learned counsel representing the appellant-accused and Sri Niranjan Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record.2. Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel representing the appellant-accused would contend that there is an illegality that would touch the very jurisdiction of the Special Court inasmuch as it is clear from the record that the charge sheet was filed straightway on 11-04-1997, and cognizance was taken by the learned Special Judge on 22-05-1997 and there is no committal and hence the whole trial is vitiated. 3. The learned counsel elaborately explained the scope and ambit of Sections 193 and 209 of Criminal Procedure Code and also the object of committal proceedings and the illegality, which would vitiate the very trial itself. In the alternative, the learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence available on record and would submit that the evidence is so artificial and the...
Uppari Siddi Ramulu S/O. Balaiah Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by P.P., High ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD(Cri)698; 2004CriLJ4732
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Ganga Rao representing Sri Bhooma Goud learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri T. Niranjan Reddy.2. The learned counsel for the appellant had brought to the notice of this Court that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge had totally erred in placing reliance on highly interested and uncorroborated, hearsay evidence of P.Ws. 4 to 7 who are not eyewitnesses to the incident. The learned counsel would also point out that except statement under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C') of the defacto-complainant, she was not examined since she is no more in this world and there is no medical evidence also available before the Court to prove the offences with which the appellant-accused had been charged with. Hence, the appellant-accused is entitled to an acquittal.3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that no doubt the defacto complainant died, but her statement recorded under Sectio...
Shaik Ibrahim Vs. the State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Hi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)163; I(2005)DMC535
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Appellant No. 1 (A-1) and Sri B. Vijayasen Reddy, learned counsel representing Appellants 2 and 3 (A-2 & A-3) and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri T. Niranjan Reddy.2. Appellants-Accused 1 to 3 aggrieved by the judgment made in S.C. No. 542 of 1993 dated 27.3.1997 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Warangal, had preferred the present Criminal Appeal. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel representing first appellant-A1 would contend that the ingredients of Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') are not attracted. The learned counsel would submit that for the purpose of constituting abetment of offence within the meaning of Section 107 IPC, instigation, intentional aiding and engaging in conspiracy are definitely essential and none of the ingredients are satisfied. The learned counsel also had drawn attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 and po...
Gunda Rajanna Vs. P. Annapurna
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD447
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1-1-2004 in transfer OP No.207 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Warangal whereunder OS No. 223/2003 has been withdrawn from the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal and transmitted to the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Warangal for trial and disposal alone with OS No. 11/2003.2. OS No.223/2003 is filed by the revision petitioner seeking a decree for declaration that three registered gift deeds purported to have been executed by him in favour of the defendant, i.e., the respondent in this revision petition are void and unenforceable and also seeking injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The plea of the plaintiff in the said suit is that he was kidnapped by the defendant and her associates and his signatures and thumb impressions were obtained on various papers and registers,...
inkollu Sasikala @ Shayamala and anr. Vs. Inkollu Venkata Ratnamma and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)ALT18
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ('the Act' for brevity) against the Judgment and decree dated 06.03.2003 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ongole in O.P. No. 134 of 1996.2. Respondents 2 and 3 in the O.P. are the appellants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P.3. Petitioner is the wife of the first respondent. The second respondent is said to be the divorced wife of late Umamaheswara Rao, who is the son of the petitioner and first respondent. The third respondent is the minor daughter of late Umamaheswara Rao. The deceased was in Government service. The fourth respondent is the appointing authority and the fifth respondent is the sub-post Master, Singarayakonda, where certain deposits are said to have been made by late Umamaheswara Rao.4. The petitioner pleaded that her eldest son Umamaheswara Rao was married to the second responden...
K. Amarnath S/O O.K. Prasad Vs. the Collector and District Magistrate ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ALD(Cri)531; 2004(6)ALT54; 2005CriLJ843
1. This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC to modify the order passed by this Court in Appl. No. 716 of 2002. Through the order passed in Appl.No. 760 of 2002, this Court directed the District Court, Rangareddy, to deliver possession of Ac. 5.02 guntas of land in S.No. 77 of Hafeezpet village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Rangareddy District to the petitioners. Through the present application, the petitioners seek modification of the same to the effect that the possession be delivered to them through the Receiver/ Commissioner, the second respondent herein, instead of the District Judge, Rangareddy.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and receiver/commissioner.3. The petitioners claim to be purchasers of Ac. 5.02 guntas of land in Survey No. 77 of Hafeezpet village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District from Smt. Zaheerunnisa Begum, W/o. Mohammad khan, defendant No. 94 in C.S. No. 14 of 1958 on the file of this Court. They filed Appl. No. 759 of 2002, under Orde...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »