Andhra Pradesh Court August 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.
J. Narahari Chari Vs. B.R. JaIn and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALT584
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. The unsuccessful tenant against whom an eviction order was made in R.C. No. 533/94 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, City Rent Controller at Hyderabad, which had been confirmed in R.A.No. 13/98 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, had preferred the present C.R.P. under Sec. 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience).2. The said R.C. was filed by the original landlord, who died pending R.C., on the ground of wilful default of payment of rent in relation to the schedule premises for4 months from May, 1994 to August, 1994. In I.A.No. 1245/95, dated 11-10-1995, the legal representatives of the deceased landlord were brought on record.3. The learned Rent Controller in R.C.No. 533/94 recorded the evidence of P.W.1 -3rd respondent in the C.R.P., R.W.1 -the petitioner in the C.R.P. the tenant, R.Ws.2 and 3 an...
Bullard Grace Manoramma and anr. Vs. Telugu Baptist Church
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: AIR2005AP506; 2005(5)ALD822; 2005(6)ALT341
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Petitioners, who were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased-judgment-debtor in an E.P. in a decree for recovery of possession, filed this revision petition questioning the order directing delivery of possession of the decree schedule property to the Decree Holder (respondent).2. The admitted facts are, respondent obtained a decree against B. Anandam and others for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property, on 26-8-1967. Appeal and second appeal against that decree were dismissed on 5-4-1971 and 28-8-1973 respectively. Thereafter, decree-holder filed E.P. No. 40 of 1975 on 29-8-1975, seeking delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property. When the wife of B. Anandam, the judgment-debtor, caused obstruction, decree-holder filed E.A. No. 321 of 1979 for removal of the obstruction, which was allowed on 21-3-1990. Questioning the said order, B. Anandam, the judgment-debtor, filed A.S. No. 66 of 1990, which was dismisse...
K. Ramanjaneyulu Vs. S. Abdul Rahiman and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD8; 2005(5)ALT705
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioner-plaintiff in I.A.No. 150 of 2005 in O.S.No. 44 of 2000 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.2. The revision petitioner moved an application aforesaid under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred in short as 'Code' for the purpose of convenience) to implead one K. Pradeep Kumar-R-3 herein who is incidentally one of the legal representatives of Sri K. Subba Rao, the 2nd defendant in the suit. It is stated that the petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit praying for the reliefs of declaration and mandatory injunction. The 1st defendant alone filed the written statement. It is further stated that though the 2nd defendant died the same was not informed and hence the legal representatives could not be brought on record. It is further stated that the present proposed party i.e. Respondent No. 3 in the C.R.P.K. Pradeep Kumar is representing the legal ...
P. Bhaskara Rama Charyulu and ors. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD857; 2005(6)ALT767
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in issuing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire the land to an extent of Ac.3-27 cents in Survey No. 57/2 of Madiki Village, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and mala fide.2. The petitioners are archakas of Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy Vari Temple-4th respondent and doing service in the temple and eaking out their livelihood by cultivating the temple land bearing S.No. 52/ 2 of Madiki Village, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District. The extent of land cultivated by each of the petitioners is not of much relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. The petitioners earlier filed W.P. No. 28190 of 1995 apprehending high-handed dispossession from the temple lands which were given to their ancestors for meeting the expenses of Nitya Dhoopa Nivedyam. ...
Kolluru Gopal Vs. Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD303; 2005(5)ALT399
ORDERB. Seshasayana Reddy, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by Kolluru Gopal with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent-Corporation in issuing the final notification dated 14.2.2002 under Section 3 of A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (for short Act) purporting to acquire land in T.S. Nos. 266 and 270/1A Part of Market yard, Block No. 9, Periki Veedhi, Visakhapatnam as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The petitioner got additional prayer included as per the orders in WPMP No. 32026 of 2003, dated 20-1-2004. The additional relief sought for is to declare the order of the respondent-Corporation in Rc.No. 1185/89/H3/UCDP, dated 31.1.2002 rejecting the objections of the petitioner and acquiring the subject land under the provisions of the Act as illegal.2. The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of an area admeasuring 1066 square yards in T.S. No. 270/1A (Part) and T.S.No...
Cherukuri Seshadri Vs. Veeramallu Koteswara Rao (Died) Per Lrs.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)ALD23; 2005(5)ALT474
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Cherukuri Seshadri, the tenant-the 1st respondent in R.C.C.No. 1/91 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsiff, Bapatla, filed C.R.P.No.3695/97, as against the order made in R.C.A.No.2/93 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge-cum-Appellate Authority at Bapatla, whereunder eviction was ordered on the ground of mala fide denial of title though the other grounds had been negatived even by the Appellate Authority. Landlord, the petitioner in R.C.C.No. 1/91, being aggrieved of negativing the reliefs on other grounds under Sections 10 and 12 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (herein-in-after, in short, referred to as 'the Act for the purpose of convenience), preferred C.R.P.No. 4257/97. The 2nd respondent in R.C.C.No. 1/91, Bodaraju Venkatappayya Sarma, and also Veeramallu Koteshwar Rao, being no more, the legal representatives were brought on record in C.R.P.No.13695/97 and R.C.A.No.12/93 on the file of Appellat...
Chakali Sreenu Vs. State of A.P.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)705; 2005CriLJ4406
P. Swaroop Reddy, J.1. This criminal appeal is preferred, assailing the judgment, dated 12-6-2003, in S.C. No. 148 of 2000 on the file of the IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak at Sangareddy, convicting the sole appellant-accused for the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred only) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 24-11-1999, at about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m., the appellant and Kattera Shankaraiah (hereinafter be referred to as 'the deceased') quarreled with each other with regard to certain amount due. In that process, the deceased assaulted appellant, who, in turn, pushed him. Consequently, the deceased fell on the ground on his back and died instantaneously. Based on the report lodged by P.W, 1, the Village Administrative Officer of Achampet village, a case in Crime No. 49 of 1999 on th...
Tata Ravi Vs. State of A.P. and Etc.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)616; 2005CriLJ4408
K.C. Bhanu, J.1. I have the advantage of perusing the judgments prepared by the learned Judges. After going through the judgments, one learned Judge came to the conclusion that the contents of two dying declarations marked as Exs. A-20 and A-29 cannot be relied upon since the contents of those documents have not been put to accused. Therefore, due to lapse of seven years, it would not be just to remand the case and accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed against accused No. 1 is set aside. Another learned Judge was of the opinion that it was a fit case to remand the matter to the trial Court to enable the Court to put relevant questions to the accused Nos. 1 to 5, touching on the dying declarations Exs. A-20 and A-29.2. In view of the difference of opinion with regard to the defective examination of the accused; that is to say not putting the contents of two dying declarations, the matter has been referred to the third-Judge, that is why it is came up before this Court.3. Lear...
Dandu Dawood Basha Vs. Abdul Khader (Deceased by L.Rs.) and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: AIR2006AP43
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of final decree proceedings in a suit for partition.2. The petitioner, respondents 14 and 15, by names, Pyari Bi and Sogra Bi are children of late Ameer Sab. Pyari Bi filed O.S. No. 94 of 1969, for partition of various items of the suit schedule properties on the death of Ameer Sab. A preliminary decree was passed way back on 2-12-1970 and the same became final. Thereafter, she filed I.A. No. 471 of 1972 for passing final decree.3. While the partition of various items of the suit schedule did not pose any problem, it became difficult to divide the items 7 to 11 of the suit schedule properties. In that view of the matter, I.A. No. 504 of 1972 was filed to have recourse to the procedure under the Partition Act, 1893 (for short 'the Act'). The I.A., was allowed and the Advocate Commissioner was appointed for the purpose of conducting sale of those four items. In an auction conducted on 18-9-1972, the deceased 1st respon...
K. Jayaraj Vs. Executive Officer, Cantonment Board and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)ALD1; 2005(5)ALT227
ORDERK.C. Bhanu, J.1. The writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the order, dated 27.5.2003, of the 1st respondent dismissing the petitioner from services etc., as confirmed in the order dated 26.11.2003 of the 2nd respondent and order dated 16.4.2004 of the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits including backwages.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Foreman in the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad, in the year 1972 and since then he has been discharging his duties sincerely. While the matter stood thus, on 28.11.2000 the 1st respondent issued Office Order No. 214, dated 28.11.2000, placing him under suspension on the ground that payment of some work bills were made excessively and irregularly during the period 1990 to 1997. On 2.11.2002 the 1st respondent issued charge-sheet to the petitioner and thereafter, enquiry was conduct...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »