Andhra Pradesh Court March 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.
Maddala Sai Lakshmi Vs. Medisetti Lakshmi Narasamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALD46; 2006(3)ALT708
B. Prakash Rao, J.1. Heard Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri A. Venkata Ramana, the learned Counsel who has been appointed to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae, since none appears on behalf of the respondents, though served.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff who, by way of this appeal, seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 31-12-2001 in O.S. No. 15 of 2000 on the file of the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. In the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff, she sought a declaration that she alone is entitled to plaint 'A' to 'D' schedule moveable and immovable properties as per the last Will dated 12-3-2000 executed by the testator and for possession of properties from the hands of defendants and for future profits over the schedule properties and costs or alternatively for partition of the schedule properties into two shares and delivery of one share to the plaintiff.3. The c...
Ganta Chinna Shankaraiah Vs. Nadunoori Swamy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD646; 2006(6)ALT178
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri P. Keshava Rao, Counsel for petitioner and Sri Hari Prasad, Counsel representing the respondent.2. The unsuccessful respondent/defendant in both the Courts below had preferred the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent herein, plaintiff in the suit O.S.No. 692/2005 filed an application LA. No. 1453/2005 under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as 'Code', praying for temporary injunction. The learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal on appreciation of Exs.P-1 to P-10 and Exs.R-1 to R-14 came to the conclusion that inasmuch as the plaintiff is claiming the property in S.No. 703 and the present revision petitioner/defendant is claiming in S.No. 704, in the light of the mutation, the other revenue records and the pahanies, the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and hence he is entitled for the relief of temporary injunction. The Court of ...
Premier Chemical Industries and anr. Vs. Member Convener and Joint Dir ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-02-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP242; 2006(3)KLT923
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioners filed the writ petition assailing the proceedings of second respondent dated 20-12-2003 whereby and whereunder permanent registration granted to first petitioner small scale industry was cancelled and first petitioner was de-registered on an allegation that the petitioners cheated the Government institution by furnishing fake copy of the rate contract agreement. The Writ petition was listed in Motion List for admission on 2-1-2006. On that day, this Court passed the following order. The matter was listed as item No. 1 in the 'Motion List' on 30-12-2005. On that day, learned Counsel for the petitioners was absent and there was no representation, therefore, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption 'For Dismissal'. Today also, though the matter is appearing in the list under the caption 'For Dismissal', learned Counsel for the petitioners is absent and there is no representation.The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed for default/non-...
Kuchimanchi Subba Rao and ors. Vs. Kanchana Prabhakara Rao (Died) Per ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD744; 2006(3)ALT12
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioners are defendants in O.S. No. 83 of 1991 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein for specific performance of agreement of sale of plaint schedule property. The first petitioner/ first defendant is contesting the suit and denying the execution of agreement of sale. The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1194 of 1999 under Order XI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking leave of the trial Court to serve interrogatories on the first defendant. The said application was allowed on 29-12-1999. After receiving the interrogatories third defendant filed an affidavit presumably under Rule 8 of Order XI of CPC in answer to interrogatories. This was filed on behalf of the first defendant who was statedly elderly and aged person having defect in hearing. Be that as it is, alleging that the interrogatories have not been answered by the first defendant, first respondent moved an application p...
P. Mani Vs. M.V. Madhava Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD761; 2006(3)ALT69
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in Survey No. 331/7 of Chittoor Revenue Village, admeasuring Ac.0.11 cents. The respondent in turn is the owner of neighbouring land in Survey No. 346 on the northern side. The petitioner is raising grass to feed his cows in the said land. When the defendant started objecting for raising grass, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 1219 of 2002 in the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, for perpetual injunction.2.Thepetitionerfiledl.A.No.1277of2003 for appointment of a Commissioner to note the physical features, in the context of assessment of damage or inconvenience, the respondent is complaining of. The I.A., was ordered and ultimately the Commissioner submitted a report.3. The Commissioner appointed in I.A. No. 1277 of 2003 was required to take assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, for identification of the suit schedule property. In the report, an observation was made to the effect that the Manda...
Mathathita Sai Meditation Centre, Yogashram Rep. by Its President, Sud ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD751; 2006(3)ALT214
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement, filed by the revision petitioner against respondents 1 and 2, 3rd respondent filed a petition to impleaded himself as a party to the suit, on the ground that he has title to the suit property and so he is a necessary party to the suit. That petition was allowed by the trial court under revision. 2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for revision petitioner is that since the suit for specific performance of the agreement executed by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner, 3rd respondent who is not a party to the said agreement is not either a proper or necessary party and so the order under revision directing his impleadment is unsustainable, by relying on Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal 2005 (4) ALT 19 (SC), where it is held that in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of property, a third party or a stranger to the contract, claiming to have an independent title and possession over ...
Nimmagadda Padmanabha Rao Vs. Kosaraju Satyavathi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: AIR2006AP233; 2006(3)ALD673
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 170 of 1996, in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, against the petitioner, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,22,483/-, on the strength of a promissory note. The trial of the suit commenced, and the cross-examination of the petitioner herein was also completed. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 1171 of 2004, with a prayer to send the promissory note to an expert, for opinion. The trial Court dismissed the application, through its order dated 6-12-2004. Hence, this C.R.P.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court dismissed the I.A., only on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage. Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Medikonda Rama Swarajyalakshmi v. Posina Sathyanarayana 1999 (1) ALD 210, he submits that the delay by itself, cannot constitute the basis for dismissal of such an application. He also contends that the comparison of the signature on the pro...
Chunchu Laxminarayana (Died) and ors. Vs. P. Andamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD747; 2006(6)ALT430
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order, dated 3-12-2003 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A. No. 533 of 2003 in O.S. No. 204 of 1990.2. One Sri Lakshminarayana, the husband of the second petitioner and the father of petitioners 3 to 11 filed the suit for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, admeasuring 125 square yards. On account of the death of the original plaintiff, the petitioners herein were brought on record as legal representatives. On an earlier occasion, the suit was dismissed on a preliminary issue. Petitioners filed A.S.No. 28 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Warangal, against the dismissal of the suit. The appeal was allowed on 19-5-2003, and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal. The respondent filed S.A. No. 643 of 2003 before this Court. The judgment of the lower appellate Court was affirmed, but certain directions were issued to...
Boppanna Vs. Ramakka and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD763; 2006(6)ALT60
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. In a suit for declaration of title and possession and for ascertaining mesne profits against eight defendants, which was decreed, the decree holders, after ascertainment of mesne profits, filed the E.P. for recovery of the mesne profits from the revision petitioner by way of attachment of his salary which was ordered. Questioning the said order, this revision is preferred.2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the revision petitioner was not in possession and enjoyment of the property allotted to the decree-holder and since the other judgment-debtors were in possession and enjoyment thereof and since the decree-holders, having made the other judgment-debtors also parties to the E.P., did not seek any relief against them, and sought attachment of the salary of the revision petitioner only with a view to cause wrongful loss to him, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.3. The contention of the learned Coun...
K. Subramanyam Reddy and ors. Vs. T.T. Devasthanams
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALD757
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. TirumalaTirupathi Devasthanams, the respondent herein, filed O.S. No. 205 of 1997, in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and consequential injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioners are defendants therein. The trial of the suit commenced. At one stage, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 561 of 2004, with a prayer to receive certain documents. Some of the documents are said to have been received.2. Petitioners filed a set of three Interlocutory Applications, being I.A.Nos. 836, 837 and 838 of 2004, with a prayer to; a) reopen the evidence; b) recall DW-1; and c) summon certain documents, which are said to have been deposited with the Tirupathi Branch of ING Vysya Bank. The trial Court dismissed the applications, through a common order dated 1-11-2004. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the documents, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »