Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-04-1959
Reported in : AIR1960AP368
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. These appeals are under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of our learned brother, Bhimasankaram J., in S. A. Nos. 923 and 924 of 3953.2. The plaintiff is the appellant in both these appeals. He instituted two suits (O. S. Nos. 293 and 294 of 1950 on the file of the D. M. C. Nandyal) impeaching two alienations made by the 1st defendant, under Exhibits B.12 and B.13 dated 27-8-1937, and for a declaration in both the suits that' the relative alienations would not bind the reversion. The facts which have contributed to this litigation lie in a narrow compass and could be narrated in a few words. One Hanumantha Reddy, who was a divided brother of the appellant, had an only son who was afflicted with serious illness and which caused an apprehension in the mind of Hanumantha Reddy that his son might not survive long. He, therefore, made a will dated 18th June 1923 (Ex. B. 45), the relevant contents of which are given, hereunder :'I have a son by name S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-14-1959
Reported in : AIR1960AP171; [1959]10STC524(AP)
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. All these petitions raise a question relating to the validity of Rule 31 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957. They bear on the assessment year 1954-55. The petitioners are proprietors of various rice mills situated in different districts of Andhra Pradesh. They deal in paddy, convert paddy into rice in their mills and sell the resultant rice. For the year 1954-55, they submitted returns showing a particular turnover and they were assessed to tax on those turnovers.On the basis of some experiments, carried on by the Department, the concerned Deputy Commissioners of Commercial Taxes issued notices to these petitioners in or about December 1957 calling upon them to show cause why they should not be assessed on the escaped turnover under Rule 31 (1) read with Rule 31 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules. After filing objections before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes raising contentions questioning the jurisdiction of tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-20-1959
Reported in : AIR1961AP71
Ansari, J.1. The reference has been made in a Letters Patent Appeal, against the order by our learned brother, Umamaheswaram, J., directing the lower appellate court to determine the merits of the appeal and the Memo of cross-objections filed in that Court.2. The suit out of which the aforesaid appeal and the cross-objections have arisen was for a mandatory and a permanent injunction. The plaintiffs have claimed that there was a donka between their fields, shown as 'A' and 'B' in the sketch attached to the plaint and that of the 1st defendant shown as 'C' in the sketch and that the rain water from the defendant's as well as other fields towards the north used to flow through the donka towards the south, the donka having been marked as 'D', 'D-1', 'D-2' and 'D-3' in the, plaint sketch map. The plaintiffs' case further is that the Highways Department had laid a road in the middle of the donka, having on either side of the road a channel for rain water to flow from the adjoining field.The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-16-1959
Reported in : AIR1960AP286
Krishna Rao, J.1. These are respectively two petitions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the common judgment and separate decrees of this Court in Appeals Nos. 98 and 99 of 1953 and a third petition for the consolidation of these two petitions. They raise a question regarding the applicability of Section 110, Civil Procedure Code and of Article 133of the Constitution of India. As there is a conflict of judicial opinion on this question, the matter has been referred to a Full Bench.2. The material facts may be briefly stated. The petitioner, Kishori Devi, is the transferee of a money decree for a little over Rs. 10,000 passed against one Lakshminarayana Raju in Order Section No. 9 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam. In execution of the decree, she attached a number of immoveable properties in December, 1950 as belonging to the judgment-debtor. The respondents filed two applications for releasing the respective properties mentioned in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-15-1959
Reported in : AIR1960AP115; [1960]38ITR93(AP)
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The principal question raised in all these petitions relate to the constitutionality of the Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in so far as it seeks to levy tax on gifts of agricultural land.2. The Act was passed by the Parliament in the beginning of 1958 and received the assent of the President on 15-5-1958. The report of the Indian Taxation Enquiry Commission, 1953-54 to the Government of India considered the introduction of gift tax in India. The commission remarked that a gift tax though appeared in theory to be an attractive proposition, required considerable experience of the opinion of Estate duty before it could be introduced in this country. A year or two later Prof. Kalder, Reader in Economics. University of Cambridge was invited by the Government of India to examine this question and he made his report to the Union Government in March 1956.His proposal was that a single integrated tax should he imposed on sifts of all kinds (including und...
Tag this Judgment!