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.
Korvi Rosaiah Vs. Mitta Srinivasa Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD211; 2006(3)ALT605
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These two revisions are filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 27 of 2003 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at Nakrekal.2. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of certain amount, on the basis of a promissory note against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a written statement denying the very execution of the promissory note. Therefore, the respondent filed LA. No. 169 of 2004 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the vakalat signed by the petitioner and the promissory note for comparison, by an expert. A report has been received to the effect that the signatures on the vakalat and the promissory note are different from each other.3. The respondent filed LA. No. 285 of 2004 with a prayer to send the loan application of the petitioner made to the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society, Nomula, so that it can be sent to an expert along with the disputed promissory note, for opinion. The LA. was allowed and the loan application of the petitio...
Jonnavithula Srinivasa and ors. Vs. Parimi Venkata Lakshmi Narasiaha S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD759
P.S. Narayana, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants in O.S. No. 124/87 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gudiwada had preferred this appeal. The 2nd plaintiff who was impleaded as legal representative of the 1st plaintiff by virtue of the orders in LA. No. 870/91 in O.S. No. 124/87 is the respondent. The first appellant herein filed yet another suit O.S.No. 177/84 as against the defendants shown in the said suit and both the suits were tried together and a common judgment was made by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiwada on 24-3-1995.2. It is not in controversy that on the respective pleadings of the parties, common Issues were settled and common judgment was delivered in both the suits. It is also not in serious controversy that the judgment and decree in O.S. No.,177/84 had attained finality since the same had not been questioned. But, however, the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 124/87 alone had been questioned and the present appeal had been preferred.3. Sri Ramakrishna, the learned ...
G. Sanjeeva Reddy and ors. Vs. Indukuru Lakshmamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALT66
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. The revision petitioners are the legal representatives of the plaintiff, one G. Sanjeeva Reddy, who filed the suit O.S. No. 341 of 1987 now on the file of the Court Of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri for injunctive relief against the respondents herein, in respect of the suit schedule property. The original plaintiff died and the plaintiffs 2 to 5 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased-sole plaintiff. The 3rd petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 2 of 2003 in the suit purportedly under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') seeking leave of the Court to file a certified copy of the 10-1 revenue record.2. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 2 of 2003 the 3rd petitioner herein pleaded that the claim in the plaint is that the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property; that the defendants have denied the plaint plea; that as the original plaintiff-the father...
Pulaparti Sankuntala Bai Vs. Mygapula Ramanjaneyulu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD146; 2006(3)ALT607
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 33 of 2000 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, against the petitioner, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 10-1-1996. The petitioner denied the execution of the agreement of sale. The trial of the suit commenced, and the recording of evidence is, said to be, almost, completed. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1319 of 2004 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short 'the Act'), with a prayer to send the agreement of sale for analysis, and opinion, by a handwriting expert. Through its orders dated 8-9-2004, the trial Court rejected the application. Hence, this C.R.P.2. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Counsel for the petitioner-submits that the dismissal of the application, on the ground that the comparison can be undertaken by the Court, under Section 73 of the Act, cannot be sustained in law. He contends that, from the beginning, the petitioner disputed the execution ...
Chilakani Venkata Rao Vs. Ch. Lakshman Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD614
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. In a suit for partition filed by the brothers of the revision-petitioner, who is the first defendant, filed a petition to implead one Nataniel as a party to the suit on the ground that his brothers alienated some property to Nataniel and so he is a necessary party to the suit and that petition was allowed and that order was confirmed by this Court in a revision. Thereafter, revision-petitioner filed a petition seeking amendment of the plaint for inclusion of the properties alienated to Nataniel, which was dismissed on the ground that the defendant in a suit cannot seek amendment of the plaint. Hence, this revision.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for revision-petitioner is that since the transferee of the property belonging to the family was ordered to be impleaded as a party to the suit, if the properties alienated to him are also included in the plaint schedule, it would be convenient for the parties to work out the equities at the time of final dec...
Post Master and ors. Vs. Voleti Satya Panivardhini and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP277; 2006(3)ALD674
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondents, who are the wife and son of Voleti Subba Rao, filed the suit against the revision petitioners for a declaration that they became the owners of and thereby acquired title to the Indira Vikas Patras purchased by Voleti Subba Rao during his lifetime, consequent on his death on 27-4-1993 and inasmuch as those Indira Vikas Patras were lost, or are not traceable, and for a consequential injunction restraining the first revision petitioner (Post Master, Chirala Head Post Office) from allowing encashment of those Indira Vikas Patras, whose details are mentioned in the plaint schedule, pending decision relating to their title.2. After contest by the revision petitioner the trial Court passed following decree in the suit.(i) that the plaintiffs be and are hereby declared as owners to the Indira Vikas Patras as shown in the plaint schedule items 1 to 8;(ii) that the first defendant be and is hereby directed not to allow the encashment of the schedule mentio...
Garlapati Nageswara Rao Vs. Devarapally Venkateswara Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD749; 2006(6)ALT428
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This C.R.P. is filed against the order dated 15-6-2004 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, in LA. No. 499 of 2003, in A.S.No. 17 of 1998.2. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 216 of 1996 against the respondents and 2 others, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Defendants 1 to 3 are his brothers, and defendants 4 and 5 are the subsequent purchasers. A preliminary decree was passed on 14-9-1998.3. The 1st respondent herein, i.e., the 5th defendant, alone filed A.S.No. 17 of 1998 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki. He gave up 4th defendant in the suit, since there was not subsisting interest in him. Petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 herein and another, figured as respondents 1 to 4 in that appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the 4th respondent in the appeal, died.4. After some delay, the 1st respondent herein filed applications, to set aside the abatement; to condone the delay in fili...
Lakshmi General Finance Ltd. Vs. Executive Engineer, Yrpc Division and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD202
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The order, dated 15-3-2004, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, in E.A.No. 199 of 2003 in E.P.No. 62 of 2002 in O.S.No. 64 of 1995, is challenged in this revision.2. The facts, that gave rise to filing of this civil revision petition, are as under :3. The petitioner is a Financing Agency. It paid certain amounts to respondent No. 2, a partnership firm, of which respondents 3 to 11 are partners. Alleging that the amount advanced by it was not repaid by respondents 3 to 11, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 9 of 1992 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Anakapalli, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,83,841/-. Later on, the suit was transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, and re-numbered as O.S. No. 64 of 1995.4. A suit filed by respondents 2 to 11, against the Government, 1st respondent herein, being O.S. No. 374 of 1987, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, was pending. It was in relation to a claim under a con...
P. Munirathnam Reddy and anr. Vs. B.M. Munirathnam Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD834
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioners challenge the order, dated 6-1-2003, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Timpati, in LA. No. 134 of 1999 in O.S. No. 333 of 1997.2. The respondent filed the suit against the petitioners, for the relief of recovery of damages and compensation, on the allegation that both the petitioners deposed against him in some other proceedings, and thereby, he sustained loss. The suit was decreed ex parte on 4-2-1998 and thereafter, E.P. No. 34 of 1998 was filed.3. The petitioners filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 4-2-1998. Since there was delay of 269 days in filling the said application, the petitioners filed IA. No. 134 of 1999 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioners pleaded that soon after they received summons in the suit, they engaged an Advocate and in the meanwhile, the well-wishers of both the parties have advised for mediation. They allege that mediati...
Chintakayala Siva Rama Krishna Vs. Nadimpalli Venkata Rama Raju and or ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP234; 2006(3)ALT1
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. This Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 31-12-2005, passed by the Arbitrator, in an interlocutory application filed under Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act').2. The facts in narrow compass are as under:There are certain disputes between the two parties in respect of an agreement of sale-dated 28-6-2004 for a site measuring 4000 square yards situated at China Waltair, Visakhapatnam. The further details are not relevant for the resolution of the present controversy. While so, the petitioner, who is the vendor, filed an application before the Arbitrator taking certain objections, which are in nature of attributing a sort of misconduct to the Arbitrator. The nature of those averments and the details of which are again inconsequential at present. Upon such an application, the Arbitrator passed an order, which is impugned herein, rejecting all those objectio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »