Skip to content

Andhra Pradesh Court June 2005 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.

Jun 21 2005

P. Ramachandra Reddy Vs. Munna Lal (Died) by Lrs. and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Jun-21-2005

Reported in: 2005(5)ALD356

ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. P. Ramachandra Reddy, the appellant in S.A. No. 980/2002 filed the present Review application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the judgment and decree made in the aforesaid Second Appeal.2. Heard Sri A. Sudershan Reddy and Sri R. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the respective Counsel representing the parties.3. Sri Sudershan Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the Review petitioner mainly concentrated on the aspect that the defendants failed to establish that Kalika Pershad expired after 17-6-1956 and in view of the same there is no question of the female heirs succeeding to the estate of the deceased father. The learned Counsel in elaboration had pointed out the findings recorded in this regard in the Second Appeal and would contend that in the light of Para 5-A which was introduced in the original plaint by filing of amendment certain findings had been recorded but that would not operate as estoppel and on a ques...


Jun 21 2005

Mohd. Kudrat Khan and anr. Vs. Nagarjuna Finance Limited

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Jun-21-2005

Reported in: 2005(5)ALD241; 2005(5)ALT773

P.S. Narayana, J. 1. Introduction: The defendants in O.S. No. 257/93 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge-cum-III Member, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (old O.S. No. 414/87) aggrieved by the judgment and Decree, dated 22-9-1994, had preferred the present appeal. M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd., Punjagutta, Hyderabad, the respondent in this appeal, is the plaintiff in the said suit. This suit O.S.No. 257/93 as tried along with O.S. No. 8/94 (old O.S. No. 4321/85) and the said suit was filed by the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 257/93 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein from seizing or confiscating or taking away lorries bearing Nos. ABT-644 and ABT-645 from his custody. Common evidence was recorded in both the suits. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined on behalf of M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd., and Exs.A.1 to A.25 were marked. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 257/ 93 was examined as D.W.1 and his father was examined as D.W.2, and Exs.B.1 to...


Jun 20 2005

Ganapathi and ors. Vs. Mirza Mustafa Ali Baig and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Jun-20-2005

Reported in: 2005(4)ALD804; 2005(5)ALT109

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'). The petitioners assail the order, dated 12.10.2004, passed by the Joint Collector, Medak, affirming the order dated 31.3.2003, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Sanga Reddy. The proceedings arose out of an application filed by the respondents under Section 32(2) of the Act.2. The petitioners claim that they are the protected tenants in respect of Ac.27-32 gts. in Sy.No. 20 and Ac. 14.35 gts. in Sy.No. 21 of Waddi Village of Nyalkal Mandal, Medak District, and that respondents 1 and 2 are the land holders. Number of proceedings ensued between the parties. The petitioners were recorded as protected tenants, under the provisions of the Act, in respect of the said land. The respondents initiated proceedings before the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) in the year 1986, alleging that the tenancy deserves ...


Jun 20 2005

Nookala Sridevi Vs. D. Krishnarjuna Rao and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Jun-20-2005

Reported in: 2005(5)ALD29; 2005(5)ALT10

ORDERGopaia Krishna Tamada, J.1. The petitioner, who was the second defendant in OS No. 228 of 1996 and was unsuccessful in IA No. 642 of 2002, preferred this revision stating that the order of the Court below is a patent irregularity.2. The brief facts are that the first respondent basing on an agreement of sale alleged to have been executed on 9-8-1986 filed the above suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale against the defendants therein. The suit is being contested by the defendants. During the course of trial, the plaintiff i.e. the first respondent herein came forward with a petition filed under Order XIII Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and Rule 128 of Civil Rules of Practice to call for the original vakalath and written statement of one late Nukala Jagannadha Reddy from the office record of A.S. No. 1439 of 1999 on the file of this Court for comparison of the signatures thereon with the signatures on Ex.A.1 filed in the present suit.3. According to the...


Jun 20 2005

C.V.B. Krishna Murthy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Jun-20-2005

Reported in: 2005(5)ALD209

ORDERG. Rohini, J. 1. All these four writ petitions are filed with a common prayer seeking a writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the Commissioner, Malkajgiri Municipality in treating the respective plots purchased by the petitioners from the Defence Housing Co-operative Society Limited situated in Sy.No. 218 of Malkajgiri as open land as per the layout sanctioned by the Director of Town and Country Planning as arbitrary and illegal. Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration, all the writ petitions are heard together and decided by this common order.2. The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 2518 of 2001 claims to be the owner and possessor of a plot bearing No. 810 of Defence Colony situated in Sy.No. 218/1, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad, having purchased the same from the Defence Housing Co-operative Society (OR) Limited under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 12-9-1980. Subsequently, in the year 1981, the Gram Panchayat, Malkajgiri was constituted as a Municipality. In ...


Jun 20 2005

Appana Pullam Raju Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Jun-20-2005

Reported in: 2005(5)ALT421

P.S. Narayana, J.1. The Central Bank of India, the 1st respondent herein/plaintiff instituted the suit O.S.No.78/81 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram, as against M/s. East Coast Oil Expellers Limited, and others for recovery of amount by passing a preliminary mortgage decree and also the other suitable reliefs inclusive of personal decree as against certain of the defendants and the learned Subordinate Judge on appreciation of the evidence available on record decreed the suit by Judgment dated 25-8-1994 as against all the defendants and the same had attained finality as against all the other defendants except the 7th defendant since the other defendants had not chosen to challenge the said Judgment and decree. However, aggrieved by the same, the 7th defendant alone had preferred the present Appeal.2. Sri Ramachander Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellant/7th defendant had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the issues settl...


Jun 20 2005

Karri Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Union Bank of India

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Jun-20-2005

Reported in: AIR2006AP24

P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel on record.2. The 7th defendant in O. S. No. 37 of 1982, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Eluru, had preferred this appeal showing the Union Bank of India, the plain tiff alone, as the sole respondent. The other defendants being not necessary parties to the appeal. The limited ground on which the appellant herein-7th defendant contested the suit is on the strength of Ex.B.32, the agreement of sale, executed by Polavarapu Satyanarayana Chowdary in favour of Karri Subbareddy.3. As can be seen from the respective pleadings of the parties, issues were settled and evidence was recorded. The appellant-7th defendant herein was impleaded as a party to the suit only with a view to enforce the said debt as against the 7th defendant too relating to items 1 and 3. In the light of the agreement of sale standing in the name of the said Karri Subbareddy, the father of the appellant-7th defendant. There is no serious controversy relating to the...


Jun 17 2005

U. Sree Vs. U. Srinivas

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Jun-17-2005

Reported in: 2005(5)ALD25; 2005(4)ALT724a; II(2005)DMC693

B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 7-4-2003 passed in O.P. No. 86 of 1998 on the file of Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Family Court Judge dismissed the O.P. filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 18(1) and (2) (a) and (g) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 on the ground that the Family Court at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.2. The appellant and the respondent are wife and husband. Their marriage was solemnized at Tirupathi on 27-5-1994. They lived together at Maruthi Nilayam, 12-A, Venkateswhara Street, Dhanalakshmi Colony, Vadapalani, Chennai. A male child was born to them on 30-3-95 out of the wedlock some disputes arose between them, the reasons are not much relevant for the disposal of this appeal, and their marital life ran in rough weather. Since 3-1-1996 they have been residing separately. The...


Jun 17 2005

Vijaya Bhargavi Chit Fund (P) Ltd. Vs. J. Rama Rao and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Jun-17-2005

Reported in: 2005(5)ALD18; 2005(5)ALT760

ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These three revisions are filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 6821 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. All of them arise in the context of bringing the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to, as arrayed in the suit.2. The plaintiff is a chit fund company and the first defendant was one of its subscribers to a chit of the value of Rs. 1,00,000/- and duration of 50 months. In the auction conducted on 15-2-1998, the first defendant emerged as the prized subscriber, and accordingly, he was paid a sum of Rs. 55,000/-. By that time, he paid an amount of Rs. 34,0007- towards monthly instalments and for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 66,000/-, he executed a promissory note. Respondents 2 to 5 are said to be the sureties.3. Alleging that the first defendant committed default from September 1998 onwards, the petitioner filed the ...


Jun 17 2005

Mohammed MoinuddIn Vs. Mohammed Mahmood Ali and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Decided on: Jun-17-2005

Reported in: 2005(6)ALD109

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 1332 of 2000 on the file of the VIII Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed this revision. He assails the order dated 5-11-2004, passed by the trial Court, through which, an objection raised by the petitioner, as to the admissibility of a document, was overruled.2. The petitioner and the respondents are brothers. The petitioner filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule properties and allotment of the corresponding share to him. The suit was resisted by the respondents. The 1st respondent pleaded that his mother, Smt. Khaja Begum, orally gifted property in house No. 18-3-431, of Chowni Gulani Murtuza, Hyderabad, admeasuring 334.5 sq.yards on 3-3-1995. He further pleaded that the factum of oral gift was incorporated in a memorandum dated 7-6-1995.3. The trial of the suit commenced. During the course of adducing his evidence, the 1st respondent referred to, and relied upon the memorandum of confi...


  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial