Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-18-1993
Reported in : AIR1994AP57
ORDERS. Parvatharao, J.1. The appellant before us is the plaintiff, a co-operative house building society. It filed a suit represented by its President, out of which the present Letters Patent Appeal arises, for perpetual injunction against respondents 1 to 4 herein (defendants 1 to 4 respectively) restraining them, their representatives, servants, agents or any person or persons claiming any interest whatsoever from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defen-ants preferred appeals against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court and the learned single Judge of this Court allowed the appeals and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff questions the correctness of the learned single Judge's judgment in this Letters Patent Appeal. We are also inclined to dismiss the suit but for reasons different from those of the learned single Judge.2. The plaintiff rests its case on 4 registered sale deeds...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-12-1993
Reported in : 1993(3)ALT56
M.N. Rao, J.1. This letters patent appeal by defendants 1 to 18 in the suit is from the judgment of a learned single Judge in A.S.No. 475 of 1977 granting a preliminary decree in favour of the first plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) setting aside the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chirala in O.S.No. 48 of 1971 dismissing the suit.2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein instituted the suit - O.S.No. 48 of 1971 -claiming 1/18th share in the suit properties as successors of their father -Mohammed Kasim - and in addition, the first plaintiff (respondent No. 1) also claimed 1/3rd share in the suit properties on the basis of a gift deed, Ex.A-1, dated 19-12-1938 executed by one Chettabi. In other words, they claimed division of the plaint schedule properties admeasuring Ac.80-54 cents into 18 shares and allotment of seven shares to them. The suit properties are situate in Ramanayapalem village, near Cherukuru, Chirala taluk, Ongole District.3. In Fasli 1221 (1812), one Raja Venkata Krish...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-16-1993
Reported in : 1993(1)ALT378
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the decree and judgment made in A.S. No. 1085 of 1983, partly reversing the decree and judgment in O.S.No. 86 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cuddapah.2. The appellant in L.P.A.No. 133 of 1991 is the plaintiff, while the legal representative of the first defendant is the appellant in L.P. A.No. 39 of 1992. The parties in these appeals will be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience.3. The appellant in L.P.A. No. 133 of 1991 filed O.S.No. 86 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cuddapah for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and for separate possession of one such share together with mesne profits. The defendant Nos.l & 2 therein, are the alienee and his father respectively. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule properties are the properties of his joint family of which himself, his father - D-2 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-30-1993
Reported in : 1993(3)ALT280
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order dated 3-8-1993 made in Review C.M.P.No. 7256 of 1993.Theappellantfiledasuitforspecific performance of the agreement of sale dated 27-6-1978. The suit was filed on 1-9-1981. The suit was partly decreed granting alternate relief of recovery of money. Challenging the said Decree, C.C.C.A. No. 47 of 1990 was filed. Pending the appeal, the appellant obtained interim injunction in C.M.P. No. 9018 of 1990 dated 5-7-1990 restraining the respondent from alienating the plaint schedule property. Many attempts were made to serve the order of injunction on the respondent through registered post, through process server of the Court and also by substituted service. The case of the appellant is that the respondent evaded to receive the notice. As the respondent executed four registered sale deeds dated 10-9-1990; 14-9-1990; 4-11-1990 and 22-11-1990, the appellant filed an application in C.M.P. No. 6727 of 1991 under Order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-08-1993
Reported in : 1993(3)ALT391
ORDER1. This batch of five Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and three Civil Revision Petitions arise out of suits filed under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. Plaintiff is the respondent in all these matters. Defendants are the appellants in all the appeals and petitioners in the revision petitions. They are challenging the Judgments and decrees of the IInd Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad appointing sole Arbitrator in each of the cases.3. Though suits were decreed appointing sole Arbitrator in each of the cases by separate Judgments, as common questions arise in this batch of cases, it will be convenient to dispose of them together by a common Judgment. It is not necessary to refer to the allegations contained in the respective plaints as they are almost similar insofar as they relate to the questions to be determined in these proceedings. However, the works, for which agreements were executed and the amounts claimed differ in each of the cases.4. Suits were i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-21-1993
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT32
ORDERP.L.N. Sarma, J.1. This writ petition was filed for a Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction restraining the respondents from determining the Non-Agricultural Land Assessment on the entire land of Ac.30-02 cents in S.No. 440/A3 situate at Kanakadripalli, H/o Itikala Village, Kolimigundla Mandal, Kurnool District. The petitioner further sought a direction to determine the Non-Agricultural Land Assessment only on the extent of 2431.99 square metres which is the actual area occupied by the Cement Factory.2. Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It was assigned an extent of Ac.30-02 cents for the purpose of starting Cement Factory. The assignment by way of alienation was made by the Proceedings of the Collector in Rc.B.469935/84 dt.8-6-1985. The Cement Factory was constructed and actually commissioned for production in May, 1986. According to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the Factory consists of buildings wherein the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-26-1993
Reported in : 1994(1)ALT696
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. In this revision filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act XV of 1960 (in short the 'Act') the landlord is the petitioner. He challenged the validity of the order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.A. No. 114 of 1981 dated 16-4-1984 as being illegal and unsustainable in law.2. The petitioner is an Association represented by its President. It owned the premises bearing Door No. 11-53-7 situate at Sobhanadri Street, Vijayawada. It is a two-storeyed building. The ground floor of the said building was let out to the respondent, who on the date of filing of the eviction petition was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 325/- p.m. The petitioner filed the eviction petition R.C.C. No. 5 of 1980 on the file of the learned Prl. District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Vijayawada on two grounds viz. (i) wilful default in payment of rent for the period commencing from 9-10-1977 to 8-11...
Tag this Judgment!