Andhra Pradesh Court July 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.
M. Nabeed Basha and anr. Vs. G. Md. Ismail
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD405; 2007(4)ALT844
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 4752 of 2002 is filed against the order and decree, dated 22-7-2002, passed in C.M.A. No. 2 of 2002 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, reversing the decree and order, dated 7-12-2001, in R.C.C. No. 5 of 1999 on the file of Rent Controller, Kurnool and Civil Revision Petition No.4753 of 2002 is filed against the order and decree, dated 22-7-2002, passed in C.M.A. No. 1 of 2002 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, reversing the decree and order, dated 7-12-2001, in R.C.C. No.4 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Controller, Kurnool.2. Petitioners in both the petitions are the tenants in respect of the petition schedule property bearing Door No. 18-90, Nehru Road, Kurnool and the respondent is the landlord.3. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship that the petitioners are the tenants and the respondent is the landlord. The tenants filed R.C.C. No. 4 of 1999 on 20-5-1999 on the file of the Rent Controller, Kur...
Apsrtc Vs. S. Mahaboob Basha
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC278
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The respondent filed O.P. No. 101 of 2001 before the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kadapa, against the appellant herein, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation.2. It was pleaded that the respondent is the owner of the lorry bearing registration No. ADC 754 and on 6.10.1995, it was proceeding from Naidupeta to Kadapa, loaded with paddy bags. A bus bearing No. AP9-Z-6377, belonging to the appellant, is said to have come in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry. It was alleged that on account of the accident, extensive damage was caused to the lorry, and that the respondent had to incur a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 towards purchase of material and service charges.3. The appellant filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the claim of the respondent. It denied the liability. It was alleged that the claim was raised nearly six years, after the allege...
Mokati Gangayya and anr. Vs. Satyavolu Paparao
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD342; 2006(6)ALT9
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthi, representing Sri M. V. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners-Judgment-Debtors and Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Counsel representing the respondent-Decree Holder.2. The civil revision petition is filed as against the order, dated 15-4-2002 in E.P. No. 120 of 1997 in O.S. No. 77 of 1981 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The said E.P. was filed under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as Code for the purpose of convenience) praying for attachment of properties and detention of the revision petitioners-Judgment-Debtors for non-compliance of the directions made in A.S. No. 12 of 1989 on the file of II-Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry. The learned I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry on the strength of Exs.A.l and A.2, the office copy of reply by decree holder to the notice sent by judgment-debtor No. 1 and registered notices issued by judgm...
Angara Naga Venkata Vani Srinivasa Rao and ors. Vs. Angara Seetha Maha ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD836
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard both the Counsel.2. The civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 5-8-2003 made in IA. No. 847 of 2002 in LA. No. 380 of 1996 in O.S. No. 160 of 1985 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.3. The application was filed under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as Code for the purpose of convenience) to register the final decree passed in LA. No. 380 of 1996 in the engrossed non-judicial stamp papers already furnished, in the name of the petitioners 1 to 3, in the place of their grand-mother by name Angara Seeta Mahalahhmamma, who died on 16-1-2002, who was the 1st respondent in LA. No. 380 of 1996 filed for final decree and who was 1st defendant in the suit O.S. No. 160 of 1985, on the ground that she executed a Will in their favour on 27-8-1993.4. The said application was resisted. The learned Junior Civil Judge after recording reasons ultimately ...
Muddasani Sarojana Vs. Muddasani Venkat Narsaiah and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: AIR2007AP50; 2006(6)ALD436
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Third defendant in O.S. No. 81 of 1981 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar, filed this second appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 30-12-1993, passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, in A.S.No. 13 of 1990.2. The first respondent (who is since dead and represented by his successors) filed the suit, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and mesne profits thereof. The case of the first respondent is as under:His father late Veeraiah and one Sri Balaiah were the sons of one Sri Rajaiah, Yashoda is the wife of Balaiah. They did not have any issues, and Balaiah died in the year 1950 or so. Yashoda was given the suit schedule property in a family settlement, with life interest in her. She died some time in the year 1981. The limited share of Yashoda enlarged into absolute estate, by operation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short 'the Act') and since she did not have any Class...
Kolor Syama Raju Vs. Sri Venkateshwara Mahal and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD278
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This CMSA is filed against the judgment, dated 28-7-2004, rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, in CMA No. 14 of 2003. The CMA, in turn, was filed against the order in E.A.No. 36 of 2001, dated 19-2-2003, passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Punganur, in E.P.No. 5 of 2001 in O.S. No. 21 of 2000.2. The appellant filed the suit against one Pindukuri L. Manohar, for recovery of certain amount, on the basis of a promissory note dated 29-9-1997, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Punganur. The subject-matter of the suit was settled, through an award, passed by the Lok Adalat on 17-3-2001. The appellant filed E.P.No. 5 of 2001, and obtained attachment of the alleged share of the judgment-debtor on 16-5-2001. The respondents herein, a third party to the decree, filed E.A. No. 36 of 2001, under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C., to raise the attachment.3. The respondents pleaded that the judgment-debtor and themselves were partners of two fir...
Hidayathulla Sheriff and ors. Vs. Bondili Kesava Singh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD766
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 394 of 1979 in the Court of the District Munsif, Vizianagaram.2. The respondent tiled the suit for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and consequential injunction. He pleaded that he purchased a house as well as abutting open land admeasuring 396 Sq.yards in Sy. Nos. 488 and 489 of Vizianagaram Town, through a sale deed, dated 30-10-1977, Ex.Al, from one Ramakrishna Sri Krishna Thiwar. According to him, the appellants herein encroached into an area of 41' x 14'. He pleaded necessary ingredients, which constituted the cause of action.3. The appellants resisted the claim of the respondent. They pleaded that the vendor of the respondent did not have any title or possession over the suit scheduled property. It was alleged that the suit schedule property, along with the appurtenant land was purchased under a sale deed, dated 3-11-1973, Ex.Bl, from D.W.2, who, in turn, had purchased the...
intech Net Limited and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: IV(2007)BC468; 2007CriLJ216
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. Cri. P. No. 2591 of 2004 is filed to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 1059 of 2004 pending on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Whereas, Cri. P. No. 4523 of 2004 is filed to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 843 of 2004 pending on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. In both the C. Cs. proceedings were initiated against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Since the parties in both the petitions are same and as the issue involved in both the petitions is common, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. In these two petitions, a short question, but important, that arises for consideration is whether a self-cheque, if dishonoured, will attract the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act').4. The petitioners are accused 1 to 4 and the second respondent is the de facto complainant in both the petitions...
Manda Yadagiri (Died) by Lrs. and anr. Vs. Gujjula Venkat Reddy @ Venk ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD101
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 98 of 1981, on the file of the District Munsif, Bhongir, filed this second appeal, aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the trial Court in that suit, and affirmation of the same by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhongir, in A.S. No. 10 of 1991.2. The respondents filed the suit, for the relief of perpetual injunction, against the appellants. It was pleaded that the respondents are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property in Sy. No. 410, admeasuring Ac. 1-26 guntas, at Mallapur Village of Bhongir Mandal, having purchased the same on 27-12-1955, from one Smt. Ameena Begum, for a consideration of Rs. 99/-. They pleaded that they are in continuous possession of the property, and have grown number of trees on it. Their grievance was that the appellants have attempted to cut the trees on 28-4-1981. Hence, they prayed for the relief of perpetual injunction.3. The appellants filed a written statement. They denied the ...
Jaldu Visveswara Rao and ors. Vs. Mandala Dhana Lakshmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD80; 2007(4)ALT703
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. In a suit filed by the respondent against the revision petitioners, when her husband wanted to give evidence as the first witness on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff, revision petitioners filed a memo stating that unless the respondent gives evidence in the first instance her husband cannot give evidence as a witness. By the order impugned in this revision the learned Junior Civil Judge rejected the memo and permitted examination of the husband of the respondent in view of Section 120 of the Evidence Act. Hence this revision.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is that in view of Order 18 Rule 3A CPC since respondent did not obtain permission from the Court to examine her witness in the first instance and did not file a memo that she does not wish to examine herself as a witness, the trial Court should have ordered that the respondent cannot give evidence at a subsequent point of time and that the order without making such a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »