Andhra Pradesh Court February 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.
Sri Krishna Sarma Vs. Ramesh Kumar Joshi and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD731; 2006(2)ALT724; 2006(3)ARBLR186(AP)
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Since the parties being common and the issue involved being inter-related, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Civil Revision Petition are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. C.M.A. No. 4381 of 2004 is directed against the order and decree, dt.9-11-2004, passed by the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, allowing the application LA. No. 2316 of 2004 in O.S. No. 77 of 2004, filed under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to appoint a receiver in respect of M/s. Venkata Naga Devi Picture Palace, a cinema theatre in Rajahmundry, while C.R.P. No. 5995 of 2004 is directed against the order and decree, dt. 9 -11 -2004, passed by the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, dismissing the application LA. No. 2623 of 2004 in O.S.No.77 of 2004, filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'the Act'), seeking to refer the dispute to an Arbitrator as per Clause 17 of the Pa...
Satyamma and anr. Vs. G. Lalitha Bai
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD254; 2006(3)ALT420
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two revisions arise under similar circumstances.2. The respondent in both the revisions filed the suits in the Court of VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for declaration of title and eviction of the 1st petitioner, in the respective C.R.Ps. The 2nd petitioner is common, and he is impleaded as a proforma party, since the tenants stated that the 2nd petitioner is their landlord. The trial of the suits commenced, and PWs. 1 to 5 were examined on behalf of the respondent herein. At the stage of cross-examination of PW-5, the suit underwent several adjournments. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suits, through judgment dated 18-11-2005. The petitioners filed applications under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., to set aside the said decree. Since there was delay in submission of the application, they filed a petition Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court dismissed the application, holding that, what were passed on 18-11-2005, ar...
Sterling Tree Magnum (India) Limited Vs. Sub-registrar and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD240
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. As part of its activity, it purchases lands, develops forests and sells bits of the same, to the intending purchasers. It purchased vast extent of land in Survey Nos. 20, 40, 41, 42 and 46 of Sangamvalasa Village, Parvathipuram Mandal, Vijayanagaram District, through several sale deeds between 14.2.1994 to 11.3.1994. The consideration was about Rs. 14,000/- per acre.2. When one of the sale deeds, dated 23.3.1995, executed by the petitioner, in favour of the intending purchaser, was presented for registration, the registering authority, 1st respondent herein, took the view that the stamp duty and the registration charges, need to be paid on yard basis, treating the subject-matter of the sale deed as house site. Reference under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act'), came to be made.3. The authority under Section 47-A of the Act had before it, the opinion rende...
Ratanlal Soni Vs. Nityanand Sanghi (Died Per Lrs.) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD342
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The un-successful tenant aggrieved by the reversing order sofar as the ground of denial of title of the landlord is concerned, in R.A. No. 175 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, had preferred C.R.P. No. 732 of 2001 under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience.) 2. The first landlord-respondent No. 1 died and the legal representatives were brought on record. The landlords filed R.C. No. 377 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, praying for the relief of eviction on the following grounds : (1) Wilful default; (2) Denial of title of the landlords; (3) Subletting of the premises to third person; (4) Causing damage to the demised premises, impairing its utility and value. 3. The learned Rent Controller on appreciation of evidence negatived all the grounds and dismissed the R.C. Ag...
Nanjala Satyanarayana Vs. Joint Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD789
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.6.09 guntas of land in Survey No. 222 of Pallipadu Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District, through a sale deed, dated 15.4.1975, executed by one Sri Somayajula Seetharama Sastry and his mother. The land was anInam, recorded in the name of one Sri Somayajula Yoganandam, the father of the vendor named above. The petitioner was issued Occupancy Right Certificate under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short 'the' Inams Act') on 30.11.987, after the purchase. Aggrieved thereby, one Sri Chellagundla Veeranarayana, claiming to be the trustee of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple of that village, filed an appeal before the District Collector under Section 24 of the Inams Act. The appeal was dismissed on 8.10.1988. Writ Petition No. 18934 of 1988, was filed against the said order.2. By the time Writ Petition No. 18934 of 1988 came up for hearing, certain developments have taken p...
Mullapudi Venkatarayudu Vs. Kakarla Madhubala
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP245; 2006(4)ALD146
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Facts in Brief:The unsuccessful plaintiff who could not get the relief of the Specific performance of the agreement of sale in question, at the hands of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovvur in O.S.No. 107 of 1987, had preferred this appeal.2. The respondent in the appeal who is the defendant in the suit, aggrieved by that portion of the decree ordering refund of Rs.42,500/- with some interest, had preferred the cross-objections raising several grounds.3. The learned Judge on respective pleadings of the parties, on appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws. l and 2, D.Ws. l to 3 and Exs.A. l to A-8, came to a conclusion that the appellant as plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands and a person approaching the Court with a false version is not entitled to the relief of the Specific Performance and accordingly, negatived the same. However, principally, on the strength of Ex.A-8, in which the rest of the amount payable had been specified by the respondent-de...
S.C. Bose and Co. and ors. Vs. G. Srikanth
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP337; 2006(4)ALD354
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondent by paying a Court fee of Rs. 1,10,526/- filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,08,03,110/- as damages from the revision-petitioners under three heads i.e., loss of earnings on account of denial of employment, loss of career development and damages for mental agony. In that suit revision petitioners filed a petition under Rule 11 of Order VII CPC to reject the plaint on various grounds. The learned Judge by the order under revision dismissed the same on the ground that the truth or otherwise of the allegations in the plaint will have to be decided only at the time of trial. Hence this revision.2. The learned Counsel for the revision-petitioners took me through the entire plaint and all the documents filed therewith in minute detail and argued the case for almost a day by raising several contentions.3. His first contention is that inasmuch as the trial Court did not advert to the contentions raised and dismissed the petition through a mute order the same...
Kodepaka Narsaiah Vs. Dandi Narasimha and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALD716
C.V. Ramulu, J.1. This second appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6-9-2002 made in A.S. No. 144 of 1996 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein the judgment and decree dated 11-12-1995 dismissing the suit in O.S. No. 399 of 1990 on the file of the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad were confirmed.2. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The only substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this second appeal is whether the Courts below were right in holding that the findings arrived at in O.S.No.899 of 1970 (A.S.No.97 of 1972) on the file of the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad as to adverse possession and title of the parties operate as res judicata in the present suit filed by the appellant ?3. There is no dispute as to the fact that the parties in the present suit i.e., O.S. ...
Tasleem Bee Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALT569
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to declare the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in D1/3255/2001, dated 16-10-2005 as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act') and for consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with her possession of an extent of Ac. 3.00 in survey No. 71 of Hothi (B) village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District without following the procedure prescribed under law.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing forthe petitioner and the learned Government Pleaderforthe respondents and perused the material on record.3. The petitioner questions the order of the Joint Collector, Medak District made under the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under. The said order reads as follows:GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINTCOLLECTOR, MEDAK ATSANGA REDDYPresent: Dr. Vani Mohan, I.A.S.,Proc. No.D1/3255/2001Dated 16-10-2005.Sub: Lands- Medak Dis...
Kodepaka Narsiah Vs. Dandi Narasimha and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ALT750
C.V. Ramulu, J. 1. This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6-9-2002 made in A.S. No. 144 of 1996 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein the Judgment and Decree dated 11-12-1995 dismissing the suit in O.S. No. 399 of 1990 on the file of the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad were confirmed.2. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The only substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether the Courts below were right in holding that the findings arrived at in O.S. No. 899 of 1970 (A.S. No. 97 of 1972) on the file of the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad as to adverse possession and title of the parties operate as res judicata in the present suit filed by the appellant?3. There is no dispute as to the fact that the parties in the present suit i.e., O...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »