Andhra Pradesh Court September 2012 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.
Shaik UjauddIn Vs. Veerabhadra Uma Devi and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 16-3-2012 in I.A.No.284/2012 in O.S.No.104/2008 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. The petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property. Respondent No.1 is defendant No.3 in the suit. She has filed a written statement denying the petitioner’s claim that he was granted patta by the Revenue officials, and has set up the plea that the Tahsildar, Tadikonda village and Mandal has granted patta in her favour. Respondent No.1 has filed the above mentioned I.A. under Order XVI Rule 1 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC”) to issue summons to the Tahsildar, Tadikonda village and Mandal, Guntur District, for giving evidence on her behalf regarding issuance of patta in her favour and also to prove that the Tahsildar has issued notice...
Ponnapoola Seetha Ramaiah Vs. Sanagala Sreenivasulu
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 22-2-2012 in I.A.No.626/2011 in O.S.No.159/2010 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Nellore. The respondent filed the above mentioned suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 7-3-2005. He filed the above mentioned I.A. to permit him to mark the said agreement of sale in evidence on his side. The petitioner/defendant filed a counter-affidavit opposing the same on the ground that the endorsement made on the back of the agreement of sale in question evidences delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold thereunder and therefore it requires stamp duty and registration under Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short "the Act"). However, the Court below has allowed the I.A. filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/defendant filed this Civil Revision Petition. A perusal of the order of the lower Court shows that it has relied...
Nemuri Lakshminarayana Vs. K. Pushpalatha and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
The 1st respondent filed O.S. No.546 of 2009 in the Court of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for the relief of specific performance of an oral agreement of sale said to have been made on 05-08-2003 in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner figured as defendant No.2 and the 2nd respondent as 1st defendant. The petitioner filed I.A. No.114 of 2010 under Rule - 11 of Order VII - CPC with a prayer to reject the plaint. He pleaded that even according to the 1st respondent, the date of agreement is 05-08-2003 and the suit filed in the year 2009 is clearly barred by limitation. The application was opposed by the 1st respondent. According to her, the limitation started from the date on which the petitioner refused to perform his part of contract and such refusal came be expressed when he got issued a notice, dated 10-05-2008. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 24-10-2011 Hence, this revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel fo...
Chityal Gundameede Ramalakshmamma Vs. Ediga Rangamma and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Feeling aggrieved by Order, dated 19-12-2011, in IA.No.870 of 2011 in OS.No.349 of 2008, on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, Kurnool District, the defendant in the suit filed this Civil Revision Petition. Heard Sri U.Ramanjaneyulyu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Sitaram, learned Counsel for the respondents. The respondents filed the above-mentioned suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 17-05-2003. In her written statement, the petitioner has taken the plea that the suit document marked as Ex.A.1 is a rank forgery and that the thumb impressions on the said document are not of her. After completion of the oral evidence on the plaintiff’s side, the petitioner has filed IA.No.870 of 2011 under Order XXVI Rule 10 (A) and Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking sending of Ex.A.1- agreement of sale to the Forensic and Handwriting Expert for an opinion on the genuineness of the thumb impressions the...
B. Ravi Kumar Reddy Vs. Shaik Masthan Vali
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
The petitioner filed O.S.No.130 of 2006 in the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole for recovery of amount from the respondent on the strength of Katha. The suit was decreed and the decree became final. Since the respondent did not comply with the decree, the petitioner filed E.P.No.495 of 2008 under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C. for arrest of the respondent and detain in civil prison. On receiving the notice in the E.P., the respondent entered appearance. He filed a counter denying the allegation of the petitioner. He stated that he has no means to discharge the decreetal amount and that he is dependant upon his father. He has also stated that he undertakes agriculture as and when instructed by his father. The executing Court dismissed the E.P. through order, dated 12.10.2009. Hence, this revision. Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is possessed of adequate means and still, he is avoiding obligation under the d...
Banka Kanaka Rao Vs. Kandregula Sanjeev Kumar and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
The petitioner filed O.S.No.154 of 2008 in the Court of VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam against the respondents herein for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 16.03.2005 and perpetual injunction. While the relief of specific performance is claimed against respondents 1 to 6 herein, respondents 7 to 15 were added in the context of relief of perpetual injunction. Among them, the 15th respondent filed a written statement and the same was adopted by respondents 7 to14. Defendants 9 and 10 i.e., respondents 1 and 2 herein filed I.A.No.1034 of 2011 under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit them to file an additional written statement. It was stated that the counsel, who was engaged by them, has filed the memo, adopting the written statement filed by the 15th respondent without their knowledge and that on realizing the same, they have engaged another Advocate and as per his advice, they wanted to file additional written s...
Ponnuri Venkata Sai Sivananda Prabhu Vs. Popuri Sunitha and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
The 2nd respondent herein filed O.S. No.123 of 2003 in the Court of the Senor Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner herein figured as 8th defendant in the suit. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant, by name, Tammana Venkateswararao died. The 1st respondent herein i.e. the plaintiff, filed I.A.No.1503 of 2004 under Order - XXII Rule - 4 stating that according to the information received by him, the deceased 1st defendant executed a Will in favour of the 1st respondent herein and that she may be brought on record as defendant No.9. The trial Court dismissed the I.A through order, dated 16-06-2006, holding that the legatee under Will cannot be brought on record as legal representative. However, it left open to the 1st respondent herein, who figured as 9th respondent in I.A. No.1503 of 2004, to come on record on her own accord. 3. The 1st respondent filed I.A. No.429 of 2009 und...
Burra Venkatswamy Goud and Others Vs. the District Collector and Other ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
This civil revision petition is filed against order, dated 03.02.2012, in I.A.No.704 of 2011 in O.S.No.326 of 2008, on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar. The petitioners filed the above-mentioned suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. During the trial, the respondents filed I.A.No.704 of 2011 for receiving certain documents as enclosed in the list accompanying to the said application. Even though the petitioners have filed a counter affidavit, they were not represented at the hearing. The lower Court has allowed the said IA subject to determination of the genuineness or otherwise of the documents and their proof of relevancy in the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed the present civil revision petition. At the hearing, Sri C.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted th...
V. Harinatha Reddy Vs. the Assistant Director (Admn) Directorate Gener ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
This writ petition is instituted by a constable of Central Reserved Police Force, seeking for declaring the action of the respondents in not sanctioning medical reimbursement amount of Rs.1,75,863/- incurred by him while securing treatment at a private hospital for bullet injury sustained by him as bad in law. The petitioner joined the service of the Central Reserved Police Force, henceforth referred to as ‘force’ in the year 1895, as a Constable. While he was working at Group Centre, Ranga Reddy, he was permitted to live outside the campus due to non-availability of family accommodation at the group centre, at the relevant point of time. While he was proceeding for lunch on 03.09.1997, from his office to his residence, he sustained a bullet injury on his back from EME Lakeline Firing Range. The bullet exited through his abdomen causing him a grave wound. He was administered first aid at the Group Centre Hospital, Ranga Reddy. Then the Medical Officer referred him to Gandhi...
Saleem Pasha and Others Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Common Judgment: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the common award in O.A. Nos.3015, 3008, 3007, 3006, 3017, 3018, 3014, 3011, 3016, 3023, 3022, 3024, 3013, 3020, 3026, 3025, 3019, 3012, 3010, 3021 of 2010 respectively dated 25-06-2012 passed by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the respondents were held to be “encroachers” under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”). 2. The respective appellants in these appeals are the respondents, and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are applicant Nos.1 and 2 - the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Karimnagar and Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Challur,respectively, in the O.As. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Tribunal. However, applicant No.2, which is “Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple” will be referred to as “T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »