Andhra Pradesh Court September 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.
Amrutha Vs. G. Ravinder Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD757; 2007(1)ALT466
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. These three civil revision petitions arise out of the same suit. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.2. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 826 of 2005 in the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the respondents, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 21-5-2004, and cancellation of sale deed, dated 27-5-2005, executed by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent. In the plaint, reference was made to the circumstances under which the agreement of sale was executed by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner. It was alleged that even while the said agreement was in force, the first respondent executed the sale deed in favour of the second respondent. The terms of the agreement were also elaborated. The petitioner also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for temporary injunction stating inter alia that she was delivered possession of the ...
Vemulapalli Rama Krishna Prasad Vs. Hanumanula Bapamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD470; 2007(4)ALT670
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 2 of 2004 in the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Krishna at Machilipatnam, filed this revision, aggrieved by the order dated 8.9.2006 in I.A. No. 392 of 2004 filed under Section 138 of Evidence Act and Order VIII Rule 5, read with Section 151 C.P.C.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. It is stated that defendants 1 and 3 are sailing with the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant alone is contesting the matter. The trial of the suit commenced. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.I in chief. He was also cross-examined on behalf of the first defendant. The cross examination on behalf of the second defendant is in progress. On noticing that defendants 1 and 3 have supported the plea of the plaintiff, the second defendant filed I.A. No...
K. Yerriswamy Vs. Special Deputy Collector, L.A.H.L.C.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALD401; 2007(3)ALT11
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Respondent filed E.P. No. 68 of 2004 seeking arrest of the revision petitioner on the ground that the revision petitioner who had withdrawn the amount deposited by it in O.P. No. 67 of 1993, in pursuance of the award obtained by the revision petitioner, did not redeposit the amount into Court even after the appeal filed by it in the High Court in A.S. No. 1373 of 1996 was allowed.2. Revision petitioner filed a counter contesting the E.P.3. On its behalf respondent examined two witnesses as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and in support of his case, the revision petitioner examined himself as R.W. 1. No documentary evidence was adduced by the parties.4. The executing Court on the ground that the revision petitioner having sufficient means is evading to pay the amount directed his arrest. Questioning the said order, this revision is preferred.5. Neither the E.P. nor the evidence adduced by the respondent disclose the respondent filing a petition under Section 144 CPC seeking res...
Pommadi Durga Rao and anr. Vs. Kota Venkatarao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALT371
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. The appellants, who are the parents of Pemmadi Srinu (the deceased) have preferred this appeal dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in the claim petition filed by them seeking compensation for the death of the deceased in an accident caused by the vehicle belonging to 2nd respondent and insured with 3rd respondent, due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent2. All the respondents contested the application on various grounds.3. In support of their case, appellants examined three witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. Respondents 1 and 2 did not adduce any evidence either Oral or documentary on their behalf. On behalf of 3rd respondent Ex.B-1 was marked by consent. No oral evidence was adduced on its behalf. Holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 1St respondent the Tribunal awarded Rs. 16,000/-as compensation to the appellants besides the compe...
P. Sudhakar Reddy Vs. M. Chalapathi Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD56; 2007(4)ALT283
V. Eswaraiah, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 26-11-1997 passed in O.S. No. 1 103 of 1985 by the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.2. The appellant in CCCA No. 29 of 1998 is the plaintiff and the appellant in CCCA No. 19 of 1998 is the defendant in the suit O.S. No. 1 103 of 1985. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.3. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of oral agreement of sale directing the defendant to execute a sale deed for 2050 sq. yards out of 8200 sq. yards forming part of S. No. 219 situated at Saidabad Village within the limits of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation after obtaining necessary permission from the authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Act or alternatively to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 169,930/- towards refund of the sale price and damages, together with future interest on the said sum @ 18% from the date of plaint till the date of realization. The...
Kosaraju Lakshmi Tulasi and anr. Vs. Kosaraju Ramachandra Rao and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)ALD338
P. Swaroop Reddy, J.1. These two appeals are filed by the appellants-plaintiffs, Kosaraju Lakshmi Tulasi and Kosaraju Karuna, against the common judgment dated 10-9-1991 in O.S. Nos.223 of 1988 and 1 of 1991 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudivada.2. In fact three suits (1) O.S. Nos.223 of 1988, (2) 1 of 1991 and (3) 2 of 1991, as they finally stood numbered were disposed of by a common judgment dated 10-9-1991 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiwada.3. O.S. No. 223 of 1988 was filed by plaintiffs, Kosaraju Lakshmi Tulasi and Kosaraju Karuna, against their father Kosaraju Ranga itoo-Defendant No. 2 and senior paternal uncle, Kosaraju Ramachandra i?ao-Defendant No. 1. Subsequently Potluri Venkata Krishna Rao was impleaded as Defendant No. 3 since he was claimed to be agreement of sale holder from Defendant No. 2 for the property in dispute. The suit is filed for declaration that they are absolute owners of Plaint-A schedule property, recovery of possession and profits at th...
Posina Yedukondala Venkataramana and ors. Vs. Pathapaty Ramachandraraj ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ALD663; 2007(4)ALT143
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Second Appeal No. 1385 of 2003 and C.R.P.No. 6317 of 2005 are interrelated with each other. Hence, they are disposed of through common judgment. Except for some minor variations, the parties are common to the proceedings. For the sake of convenience, they are referred to, as arrayed in the second appeal.2. The relevant facts may, briefly, be stated as under:3. Posina Tammayya had three sons, namely, Venkata Rayudu, Satyanarayana and Suryanarayana. The third son is possessed of lands, in various survey numbers. Substantial extent thereof is said to have been leased, in favour of respondents 1 to 7. As regards 90 cents of land in R.S. No. 242/2 of Apparaopet Village, the 1st appellant herein, who is one of the grandsons of Venkata Rayudu, brother of Suryanarayana, filed O.S. No. 36 of 1985 in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Tadepalligudem, against the respondents herein, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. The suit was prese...
Borroth Sham Rao Vs. Station House Officer and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALT424
ORDERD. Appa Rao, J.1. The petitioner, the brother of missing woman by name Mrs. Navarkhela Renuka, seeks her production by a writ of Habeas Corpus.2. The petitioner alleges that the marriage of Renuka, his sister, was performed on 30.12.2005 with the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is no other than his wife's brother. He further alleges that after the marriage of his sister, she joined the 2nd respondent and began residing with the respondents 2 to 6. In the first week of March, 2006. when he went to the house of 2nd respondent, he found his sister was missing. When he questioned, the 2nd respondent gave evasive replies about her whereabouts. On that, he gave a report to the Station House Officer, Moinabad Police Station, the 1st respondent herein, on 05.03.2006. He also sent a copy of the report to the Circle Inspector of Police by way of registered post, which was returned unserved. The 1st respondent is acting hand-in-glove and extending the help to the respondents 2 to 6. After...
M. Shiva Kumar and ors. Vs. A. Bal Reddy and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD451; 2007(1)ALT76
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.1. The writ petitioners seek an appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus/certiorari to quash the judgment dated 29-10-2002 passed by the learned Special Court in L.G.C. No. 9 of 1997.2. The writ petitioners along with their mother, Mrs. M. Savithri, are the applicants in L.G.C. No. 9 of 1997 before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short, the Act') Hyderabad. The respondents herein are the respondents therein. The application was filed to declare the respondents as land-grabbers qua the land measuring Acs.5.16 guntas covered by Sy.No. 10 and Acs. 1.35 guntas covered by Sy.No. 12 of Kompally Village, Quthubullapur Mandal, R.R. District (for short 'the disputed land').3. Briefly stated, their case was that late M. Shankaraiah, the father of the applicants and the husband of Savithramma, was the owner of the disputed land. He filed a suit in O.S.No. 30 of 1966 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate East an...
Challa Chinna Subba Reddy and ors. Vs. Challa Pedda Munaiah (Died) and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALD751
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 77 of 1992, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Proddatur, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, and renumbered as OS No. 5 of 1999.2. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit against his two brothers, Appellants 1 and 2, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. He pleaded that the properties of joint family, comprising of three brothers, was partitioned about 40 years prior to the filing of the suit, and that each of them was enjoying the lands which fell to their shares. He stated that after the partition, he purchased the suit schedule properties with his own funds, and that his brothers started interfering with the possession. Alleging that he was dispossessed from the suit schedule properties, during the pendency of the suit, he amended the plaint and claimed the relief of recover...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »