Andhra Pradesh Court September 2007 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.
Geddeam Damayanti and anr. Vs. Geddam Akkamma and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD20
P.S. Narayana, J.1. On 8.12.1998, this Court made the following order:In view of the substantial question of law raised in Ground No. 7 of the Memorandum of Grounds, the Second Appeal is admitted.2. The substantial questions of law raised in (a) and (b) of Ground No. 7 are as hereunder:(a). Whether the suit filed by the wife for partition of Joint family property alleging her husband died before filing of the suit is entitled to draw the presumption under Section 108 of Evidence Act, though the statutory period is not completed on the date of filing of suit but completed during the course of trial and whether the suit is maintainable basing on presumption only.(b). In a suit for partition when a court comes to the conclusion that some of the items are not included in the suit schedule whether that suit can be termed as partial partition and not maintainable under law.3. Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellants, would maintain that though the relationshi...
Durvasula Dakshina Murty Vs. Smt. Vajjala Vijaya Kumari
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD347
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard the Counsel on record.2. This Court, on 17.08.1998, made an order in the Second Appeal 'Admit on substantial question of law raised in ground No. 10', and in C.M.P. No. 15943 of 1998, this Court granted interim stay until further orders. Subsequently, C.M.P. No. 1453 of 1999 was filed to vacate the said interim order, and on 15.12.1999, this Court made the following order:Having regard to the facts and circumstances and having regard to the fact that the interim order was passed on 17.08.1998, the stay order made absolute.Expedite the hearing of the second appeal.3. Thus, the second appeal is coming up for final hearing.4. The substantial questions of law which arise for consideration in this Second Appeal are as hereunder:1) The plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed on the admission made by the plaintiff that they came to know that the property belonged to the mother of the defendant and the suit is not filed against the mother of the defendant and as s...
K. Gangi Reddy (Died) and ors. Vs. the Joint Family
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALD478; 2008(3)ALT673
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Defendants 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 15 of 1987 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Palamaner are the appellants.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.3. The plaintiffs, as a joint family, filed the suit, against the defendants, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, admeasuring Ac.0.73 cents, in Survey No. 22/3 of Gowni Thimmalapalle Village. They pleaded that that the suit schedule property was held in joint by their ancestors, namely Pedda Gangi Reddy, Chinna Gangi Reddy, Mekanna @ Muni Reddy, Naganna @ Nagi Reddy and Pilla Reddy, cultivated by them, duly passing on the shares to the respective sharers. It was alleged that some of the defendants were trying to alienate the property, by treating it as their exclusive property, and that the necessity had arisen to effect partition of the same. The suit was basically contested by defendants 4 to 9. Other defendants virtually sailed wit...
Siginamsetty Subba Rao Vs. Chilakala Anasuryamma
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD674
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri V.V. Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel representing the appellant and Sri G. Srirama Rao, learned Counsel representing the respondent.2. The unsuccessful defendant in the suit O.S. No. 502 of 1982 is the appellant in the appellate Court and also in this Second Appeal. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal is:The stipulation in the Will of late Sri Kasi Viswanatham casting an obligation on the defendant to pay the amounts to his daughters from out of the future collections of the amounts due to the firm amounting to a gift of property which is non-existent on the date of gift is invalid. Therefore, the very obligation being invalid, no liability can flow out of such obligation.3. Incidentally, the learned Counsel for the appellant also would submit that though in the written statement, the question of limitation was specifically raised, no issue had been framed, and both the Courts erred in decreeing the suit, and ...
Gajula Nanganna Vs. Ediga Lakshmi Devi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD68; 2007(6)ALT624
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed by the Judgment Debtor in E.P. No. 248 of 2004 in O.S. No. 656 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Dhone.2. The Decree Holder filed a suit for recovery of money and it was decreed. Later, she filed E.P. for attachment of bulls and cart. The Judgment Debtor resisted the said E.P. by saying that he is an agricultural coolie, therefore, his implements cannot be attached under Section 60 of C.P.C. He filed E.A. No. 34 of 2005 for raising attachment of the bulls and cart. The Execution Court, after considering the evidence adduced by both parties, came to a conclusion that the bulls and cart are not liable for attachment. Hence, the Application was allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, the Decree Holder preferred 2005 before the Principal District Judge, Kurnool, and the said Appeal was allowed by setting aside the order of the Execution Court by observing that there is no evidence to the effect that the petitioner was usi...
B.K. Babu Rao @ Died Per L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Smt. A. Jaya Lakshmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: AIR2008AP78; 2008(2)ALD411; 2008(3)ALT570
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This Second Appeal presents an avenue for discussion, on certain important aspects, on Hindu law.2. Stated in brief, the facts that gave rise to this Second Appeal are as under:Appellants 1 to 4 are the sons and respondent is the daughter of late B.S. Kondal Rayudu and late Janakamma. House bearing No. 6-2-150 situated at New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad, was purchased, in the year 1934, by the family. The respondent was married in the year 1942. However, she continued to live in part of the suit schedule house, since long time.3. The respondent and her mother, Janakamma, filed O.S. No. 1012 of 1973 in the Court of X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the appellants, for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the appellants, from interfering with the possession of part of the suit schedule house and for mandatory injunction, directing them to vacate that portion of the house, which is in their possession. It was pleaded that Kondal Rayudu e...
Dredging Corporation of India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Janapareddy Murali Kri ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALT215
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1.This Revision Petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No.736 of 1999 on the file of the li Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.2. The respondent herein is the complainant in the said case. He filed a complaint alleging that the wages due to him are payable with effect from 23-06-1999 till the date of filing of the complaint by the accused. The complainant worked as a Petty Officer in the Indian Navy and later, he was recruited by the Sainik Board as a monthly paid worker in the accused organization. The complainant is a Navy Petty Officer and holder of Continuous Discharge Certificate. The complainant signed the articles of agreement on 12-12-1998 as per Section 16 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') as a Seaman and the same was approved by the Director General of Shipping, Mumbai. While he was on the Board, Dredge VIM at Paradeep, on 19-06-1999 a memo was issued as monthly paid worker, which was declined by him. He was ...
Adabala Raju and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD145
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered notice before admission and while permitting the Counsel for petitioners to serve notice on respondents, it was further ordered pending further orders, the proposed auction may go on but the same shall not be confirmed. Subsequent thereto, after a couple of adjournments, this Court issued rule nisi on 7.9.2007. The 4th respondent filed a W.V.M.P. No. 2087/2007 praying for the vacation of the interim order dated 24.7.2007 referred to supra. The 5th respondent also filed counter-affidavit.2. Though the matter appeared under the caption of Interlocutory, the learned Counsel representing the respective parties made a request for the disposal of the writ petition itself and thus with the consent of the Counsel on record, the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioners filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in no extending the lease in favour of the petition...
Narender Raghuvanshi Vs. Smt. Neetu Raghuvanshi and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ174
ORDERG.V. Seethapathy, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by petitioner A.1 to quash the FIR registered against him in Cr. No. 164 of 2007 of Ramachandrapuram PS, for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.2. The first respondent herein, gave a complaint against her husband petitioner-A1 and other family members on 9-5-2007 to S.H.O., Ramachandrapuram PS. Medak District, alleging that at the time of her marriage with A.1 that took place on 28-11-2005, her parents gave Rs. 1.60,000/- towards furniture, Rs. 65,000/- for purchase of motor bike, Rs. 60,000/- for clothes and also spent more than Rs. 4,00,000/- for marriage expenses and subsequently the accused demanded a car and the complainant's parents gave Rs. 2,50,000/-in March 2006 and in spite of it, the accused have been harassing her mentally and physically demanding more dowry. It is even alleged by her in the complaint that the accused also forced her to do prostitution and unable to bear their torture, she came d...
Muddamsetti Satyanarayana (Died) and Muddamsetty Apparao Vs. Donkana T ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALD569
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Srinivas Rao representing Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for appellants and Sri Seetaram, learned Counsel representing the respondent.2. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal:1. Whether judgment and decree in O.S. No. 51 of 1977 as confirmed in AS No. 5 of 1982 do not estop the respondent from claiming any rights to draw water from Nadimikantam Tank?2. Whether the suit for damages could be decreed on the basis of report of the Commissioner filed in another suit without examining him and whether the respondent can rely upon Ex. A-2 without examining the Commissioner in the later suit?3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages without establishing his right to draw water and whether the suit for damages could be decreed on the basis of hypothetical figures without there being any evidence?3. Submissions at length were made by the respective Counsel representing the respective parties in this seco...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »