Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 143Ind.Cas.591
..... also sections 34 and 39 are referred to at any rate the application for refund has not been properly presented because here the document is not unstamped nor can it be said that it has been, unduly; stamped by accident. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 143Ind.Cas.29
1. arguments were heard from the records it appears that the suit was decreed ex parte and the application was presented to set it aside. the learned judge of the original side allowed the application and made the following order:the original decree dated 11th amerdad 1341 fasli is set aside to the extent of interest allowing the remaining decree to stand.2. against this order the miscellaneous appeal has been filed, before us. there is no doubt that under the law a court has got powers to decree the suit in respect of the matters admitted and to proceed with the suit in respect of the matters dispute. this seems to be the underlying idea of the original court. but the difficulty is that there is no provision to, allow the farmer decree to stand. when the ex parte judgment is set aside the decree based on that judgment will be deemed to cease to be nullus functo. there is no provision in law to set aside an ex parte order in part. as stated above, ordinarily the ex parte decree will be set aside in to when there are sufficient and proper reasons for doing so and, the defendant will be given opportunity to defend. vide section 127, hyderabad civil procedure code, act no. iii of 1323 fasli. however, under section 160, civil procedure code, if the defendant admits the claim of the plaintiff in part the court has got powers to pass the order or judgment it deems proper without waiting for the disposal of any other question. but this provision has application only when the case is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 143Ind.Cas.883
1. the application for revocation of the succession certificate has been dismissed by the district court, mahbubnagar. the present appeal is preferred against the said order. the question is whether an appeal against such order is competent. the learned pleader for the appellant relies upon section 17 of act no. iii of 1307 fasli (the hyderabad succession certificate act). but from the wording of the section it is clear (?) the right of appeal is given to a party aggrieved against the order granting the application for revocation and not when the (application is refused. vide, raghunath v. venkat anna 3 d.l.r. 540 in this connection. the pleader for the appellant has also cited manchharam v. kalidas 19 b. 821. there is no specific decision on the point in the said case rather the revisional powers of the high court have been resorted to. at any rate the tenor of the present act seems to be that the appropriate remedy against such an order is not by way of appeal. however, in view of the facts of the case, we deem it proper to exercise our revisional power and vary the order of the court below. the court below ought to have passed orders after hearing the objection of the petitioner. it is not correct to refuse the application on the ground that the applicant ought to have obtained the succession certificate can be revoked on sufficient grounds. the only question to decide is whether the grounds advanced are tenable for which an enquiry will have to be held. hence the appeal .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 143Ind.Cas.535
1. the pleader for the respondent is heard. the appellant is present in person. the order of the lower court that the original side of the high court is not competent to entertain the application is correct: vide ram lal v. kishen chand 83 ind. cas. 531 : 51 i.a. 72 : (1924) m.w.n. 79 : a.i.r. 1924 : p.c. 95 : 8 n.l.j. 62 : 20 n.l.r. 33 : 19 l.w. 549 : 34 m.l.t. 62 : 22 a.l.j. 386 : 46 m.l.j. 628 : 51 c. 351 : 26 bom. l.r. 586 : 28 c.w.n. 977 : l.r. 5 a.p.c. 216 (p.c.). it might be argued that the application ought to have been returned for presentation to the proper court under section 72, hyderabad civil procedure code, act no. iii of 1332 fasli (order vii, rule 11 of act no. v of 1908). but this argument also is not acceptable because the application to file an award is not a plaint and section 71 (order vii rule 10) ordains the return of the plaint only. such an application cannot be deemed a plaint for every purpose simply because it is provided in section 559 (schedule. no. ii para. 20) that an application to file award is numbered and registered as a suit nor can we hold likewise within the principles of analogy. the high court of rangoon has held the same view in ma thein tin v. maung ba than, 76 ind. cas. 493 76 ind. cas. 493 : i.r. 266 : a.i.r. 1923 rang 26. the appellant's contention that cost a ought not to have been awarded on the scale as in a regular suit is certainly tenable. undoubtedly in regard to allowing costs, section 245 hyderabad civil procedure code. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ224
order1. this is a report made by the sessions judge of aurangabad recommending the enhancement of sentence. the munsif of kannad found both the accused kosha and gulab guilty under sections 10 and 31, hyderabad abkari act and sentenced them to a fine of rs. 2 each. there was a 3rd accused kalu, but he is not before us and the government have not been able to trace him. so this order is only as against the accused kosha and gulab. these two accused were found distilling illicit liquor and were caught red-handed. this is amply proved.2. under the circumstances, we agreed with the sessions judge that the fine of rs. 2 each is inadequate. we wish to draw the attention of the lower courts that in such matters adequate punishment must be given and such nominal punishment serves no purpose and is worse than useless. the punishment must be deterrent in such oases. we agree with the sessions judge that each of the two accused must be punished for a period of one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of rs. 10 each. in default, they are to undergo a further period of one week's simple imprisonment.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ208
order1. vakils for the parties were heard. a point of law in this case has been referred to us by a single judge of the high court, the point is, whether the word 'child' used in section 411, hyderabad criminal p.c., this section being equivalent to section 488, indian criminal p.c. does not cover the ease of a daughter of 19 years so as to preclude her from suing her father for maintenance under the section. there are conflicting decisions on this point, which has been mentioned by the hon'ble judge in his reference. the first is reported in 36 deccan law report 169, in which it is held that 'child' means one who is a minor, and the other is in 29 deccan law report 244. where it is held that 'child' means son or daughter and such parson need not be minor. in the latter judgment, emphasis is laid on the words 'unable to maintain itself.' i agree with this latter authority and hold that the word 'child' as used in section 411 of the code means son or daughter and such person need not necessarily be a minor. when age is not mentioned in the section, i cannot restrict the meaning of the word 'child' to only minors. the object of the section appears to be clear the relationship between father and child is such that when one of the parties is unable to maintain himself, the other is required to maintain him, i. e., when the father is not in a position to maintain himself, duty is cast on the child to maintain the father, and similarly when the child is unable to maintain himself, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ281
1. this is an appeal submitted by (state) against the order of acquittal passed by the magistrate of alampur dated 13-4-1357f.2. the magistrate baa stated in his order that nobody was present on behalf of the abkari department, and as the accused was present and the case was one in which a summons was ordinarily to be issued, the case is dismissed for default under section 219, hyderabad criminal p.c., and the accused is acquitted.3. learned advocate for the appellant argues that the order of dismissal for default is contrary to law. he also states that a petition for adjournment was sent through the sub-inspector of abkari, but that he could not submit the same in court in good time due to sickness of his wife.4. after going through the provisions of section 219, hyderabad criminal p.c., we are of the opinion that the order of dismissal for default cannot be upheld, the proviso to the section lays down that where the complainant is a public servant and his personal attendance is not required, the magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case.5. it is argued that 13th isfandar 1357f, was fixed for the evidence of the accused and the office note in the file of the trial court shows that the accused had taken no steps to summon the defence witnesses nor had filed list of any d. ws. it is, therefore, contended that under the circumstances, the attendance of anybody on behalf of the state was not required at all. the accused is not present before us.6. we .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ718
1. this is an appeal submitted by ft state against the order of acquittal passed by the mag. of alampur dated 13 4-1357 f.2. the mag. stated in his order that no. body was present on behalf of the abkari department, & as the accused was present & the case was one in which a summons was ordinarily to be issued, the case is dismissed for default under section 219, hyd. cr. p.c. & the accused is acquitted.3. learned advocate for applt. argued that the order of dismissal for default was contrary to law. he also states that a petn. for adjourn, meat was sent through the sub-inspector of abkari, but that he could not submit the same in ct in good time due to sickness of his wife.4. after going through the provisions of section 219, hyd. cr. p.c. we are of the opinion that the order of dismissal for default cannot be upheld. the proviso to the suction lays down that where the complainant is a public servant & his personal attendance is not required, the mag. may dispense with his attendance & proceed with the case.5. it is argued that 13th isfandar 1357 f was fixed for the evidence of the accused & the office note in the file of the trial ct. showsthat the accused had taken no steps to summon the defence witnesses nor had filed list of any d. ws. it is therefore contended that under the circumstances, the attendance of anybody on behalf of the state was not required at all. the accused is not present before us.6. we agree with the contention that the-attendance of the abkari .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ710
order1. this is an appln, for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus praying that the petnr. be set at liberty. the learned chief justice before whom the appln was filed directed notice to issue to the govt. & after notice to the advocate-general, the petn. came on for hearing before us on 21.4.1960. we have heard the arguments of moulvi abdul hasan syed ali for the petnr. & the advocate general on behalf of the govt.2. before the passing of the const. ind. the h.c. had power to issue an order directing the release of a person said to be illegally detained under section 620, hyderabad cr. p.c. now, since the passing of the const. ind., the power to issue writs in the nature of habeas corpus & similar writs has been specifically given to the h. c. under article 226, const. ind.3. the petnr. in this case has been detained under section 3 preventive detention act iv 4. of 1950, passed by the indian parliament on 25-2-1960. under article 246, const. ind.. parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to my of the matters enumerated in list 1 of sch. 1 of the constitution and among the various items in respect of which parliament is empowered to make laws, item no. 9, is 'preventive detention for reasons connected with defence, foreign affairs or the security of india', & under section 3 of the above enactment the central govt. or state govt. may, if satisfied, with respect to any person with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ502
order1. on 28.2-1950, one morampudi narsayya filed an appln. accompanied by an affidavit praying for the issue of writs of habeas corpus under article 226, const. ind. the grounds stated in the petn. are that 9 persons specified in the appln. have been arrested without proper legal authorisation. this appln. was admitted & a notice was issued to the govt. advocate on 14-3 1900. on 14 7-1950 when the petn. came up for bearing before a division bench, mr. mohammed mirza, the learned govt. advocate, on behalf of the govt., furnished only two copies of detention orders relating to sitaramaiah, & yenkayya, s/o appayya, but did not file any copy of detention orders regarding the other seven, & stated that he had no further instructions as to whether the detention orders have been served on these seven detenus. he further said that he was not aware whether grounds of detention were furnished to all these detenus. the division bench, not being satisfied with the statement of the advocate, directed the production of &he; detenus. today, in compliance with that order, six of the detenus viz. : 1. karamanchi sitaramayya, 2. rayapati venkayya, 3. golamandla narsayi, 4. golamandla ramayi, 5. chintala mukkayya & 6. rajani ramulu, have been produced before us from their respective custodies. we are informed that .detenu 5, chintala somayya (mukkayya?) is dead, & detenus chintala narasayi & chintala potai have been released. on these facts, we have to determine whether the appln. for their .....
Tag this Judgment!