Andhra Pradesh Court November 2006 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.
Mandala Gangunaidu and ors. Vs. Palavalasa Gopinaidu and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD548; 2007(4)ALT34
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 42 of 1988, in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Parvatipuram, filed this second appeal, against the judgment rendered by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Parvatipuram, in A.S. No. 22 of 1993, reversing the one, rendered by the trial Court.2. The plaintiffs are the ayacutdars of an extent of Ac. 17-00 of wet land of Chinamerangi Village of Vizianagaram District. A minor irrigation tank, by name Sivvalavani Inam tank, used to be the source of irrigation. Respondents 1 to 8 are the ayacutdars of the land under another tank in the neighbourhood, by name Jagannadha Sagar. The appellants filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction against the respondents 1 to 8, from using the water from Sivvalavani tank, for irrigating their lands. It was pleaded that though the respondents do not have any land in the recognized ayacut of the said tank, they were forcibly and unlawfully drawing the water from it. The 9th respondent herein i...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Palla Nageswara Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD67
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. First respondent who received injuries due to collision between a bus belonging to the second respondent and a lorry belonging to the third respondent insured with the appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/- from respondents 2 and 3 and the appellant. The Tribunal after enquiry held that the first respondent is entitled to Rs. 90,000/- as compensation from the appellant and respondents 2 and 3. Aggrieved by the said award passed against it, the appellant insurer preferred this appeal.2. The only contention raised in this appeal is that inasmuch as the driver of the lorry of the third respondent was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, the Tribunal was in error in making the appellant liable to pay the compensation payable to the first respondent.3. Appellant examined R.W.4 to show that a person who was not authorized to drive the lorry was driving the...
Pedda Jagannadha Rao and anr. Vs. Renanki Janikamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD442; 2007(4)ALT184
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The appellants are spouses and the sole respondent is the sister of the 1st appellant.2. The respondent filed O.S. No. 10 of 1986 in the Court of District Munsif, Tekkali, initially, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of two items of schedule property. Subsequently, the suit was amended by incorporating the relief of recovery of possession of the said items. She pleaded that the properties were acquired by her mother and thereafter gifted to her, under a gift deed, dated 20-6-1970. She is said to have entrusted the properties to the 1st appellant, for management and taking advantage of the same, the latter stated asserting his own independent rights vis-a-vis the property.3. On behalf of the appellants, a written statement was filed. They admitted that a gift deed (Ex. A. 1), dated 20-6-1970, was executed by the mother of the 1st appellant and the respondent. However, it was pleaded that the sad gift deed was cancelled through another deed, date...
State Military Estates Officer and anr. Vs. Sultan HussaIn (Died) by L ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD538
Ghulam Mohammed, J.1. The defendants in the suit filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8-3-2001 passed in OS No. 1450 of 1984 by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The plaintiffs-respondents herein filed Cross-Objections in the appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment to the extent of rejecting the claim for granting an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per annum for past mesne profits and Rs. 15,000/- per annum for future mesne profits in respect of the suit property.2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as arrayed in the suit. The facts stated are thus :3. The 1st plaintiff (since deceased) filed the suit represented by his GPA holder and now by his LRs. plaintiffs 2 to 6, stating that he is the pattadar and title holder of the property to the extent of Ac. 1-08 guntas situated in Sy. No. 33/1, Guddimalkapur, Golkonda Tahsil, for short, 'the suit property' paying land revenue till the year 1970. That later the State Military Esta...
Rohit Steels Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Director, Vijaya Kumar Gupta Vs. Poddar ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD281; 2007(1)ALT152
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 444 of 1997 in the Court of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount. The trial itself commenced at a belated stage. The cross-examination of petitioner, as D.W.1 is said to have taken place in the month of August, 2006.2. The petitioner filed I.A.No. 1902 of 2006 in the suit under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, to recall him for re-examination. He stated that he has answered several questions in the cross-examination in Hindi and in the course of translation, some inaccuracy has crept in. It is also stated that the discrepancy, in what is stated by the petitioner and what was translated, was noticed only after the certified copy of the deposition was obtained. The application was resisted by the respondent and ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the LA. through its order, dated 18-10-2006. The same is challenged in this Civil Revision Peti...
Kanchan Sharma Vs. Uma Shanker Sharma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2007AP119; 2007(2)ALD129
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage was performed on 7-3-2000. The respondent filed H.M.O.P. No. 80 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act'), against the petitioner. He alleged that the petitioner became unconscious, on the next day of marriage itself, and that the fact that she was suffering from rheumatic heart disease was not known to him. Without specifying any independent ground, but citing Section 12 of the Act, he sought for annulment of the marriage. At the instance of the petitioner, the O.P. was transferred to the Family Court, Hyderabad and re-numbered as O.P. No. 742 of 2004. Through its order, dated 22-12-2005, the Family Court decreed the O.P. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the said decree. Since there was delay of 75 days in filing the same, she also filed I .A. No. 376 of 2006, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, ...
Ram Swaroop Sankla and ors. Vs. Chandrapal Singh and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD178
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. In a way, it can be said that this revision presents a tragedy of errors. The 1st respondent filed O.S. No.207 of 1999 against Respondents 2 to 4 in the Court of X Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for recovery of certain amount. He also filed I.A. No. 1304 of 1999 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC and obtained an order of attachment before judgment in respect of an item of immovable property, through order, dated 30-4-1999.2. Stating that he purchased the very item through Sale Deed, dated 22-3-1999, the 1st petitioner filed I.A. No. 187 of 1999 under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC with a prayer to raise attachment. Some how or the other, the trial Court does not appear to have dealt with, the said application. It is stated that the suit was ultimately decreed in the year 2004.3. It is stated that even while the suit was pending, the 1st petitioner transferred the item of property in favour of Petitioners 2 and 3 on 24-4-2002...
Mr. Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao and Two ors. Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Pub ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1204
ORDERRamesh Ranganathan, J.1. Seeking to have the proceedings in Cr. No. 31 of 2005 of Samalkota Police Station, East Godavari District quashed, the present criminal petition is filed by accused 2 to 4. The complaint, in Cr. No. 31 of 2005, was filed before the Samalkota Police Station against accused 1 to 4 for offences under Sections 417, 418, 420, 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.The allegations in the complaint, filed on behalf of the complainant by her mother and power of attorney holder, are that the complainant is living in St. Kitts in the U.S.A. The 1st accused is her legally wedded husband and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th accused are the father, mother and brother respectively of the 1st accused. The complainant, though born in Kakinada, went away to the U.S.A. along with her parents and was brought up there. She later came down to India for her higher education and joined M.B.B.S. course in the Manipal Medical college in the yea...
S. Brahmanandam Vs. S. Rama Devi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-18-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ811
ORDERP. Lakshmana Reddy, J.1. As the parties to both the cases are common, I consider it just and convenient to dispose of the same by way of common order.2. Criminal Petition No. 2050 of 2004 is filed by the petitioner-husband to quash the order, dated 4-12-2002 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 4487 of 2001 in M.C. No. 87 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad and also the order dated 24-12-2003 passed in Crl.R.P. No. 14 of 2003 on the file of the Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad.3. Crl.RC. No. 479 of 2004 is filed by the petitioner-husband aggrieved by the order, dated 24-11-2003 passed in Crl.RP. No. 16 of 2003 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad which was filed by the first respondent-wife against the orders dated 4-12-2002 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 4487 of 2001 in M.C. No. 87 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.4. The relevant facts in brief are as follows:Smt. S. Ramadevi-respondent herein filed ...
Khaja NaseeruddIn and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-17-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD191
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by the sons of late Raza Ali through their General Power of Attorney (GPA). In the first writ petition, they assail the order of the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, the first respondent (hereafter called, the Commissioner), dated 13.06.2005 as well as order of the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records (hereafter called, Deputy Director) as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The Commissioner by his order directed the Deputy Director to keep the demarcation of Jubilee Hills Municipality (JHM) plot No. 8A in abeyance and further ordered to consider the application of third respondent for demarcation of JHM plot No. 8. The Commissioner also indicated that the Deputy Director should first reject the request of third respondent and then do the demarcation of plot No. 8A or take up demarcation of both the plots simultaneously. The Deputy Director also informed that demarcation of plot No. 8A is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »