Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO C.R.P.No.3374 of 2013 dated:20-08-2013 Golla Dharmanna....Petitioner Sakari Poshetty and others.....Respondents. Counsel for the petitioner:Sri K.Ram Subba Rao Counsel for the respondents: -- HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred 1 AIR2008SCW48292 (2003) 6 SCC6413 2004 (4) ALD824 (2001) 3 SCC15 (2003) 8 SCC7526 (2010) 8 SCC423THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO C.R.P.No.3374 of 2013 ORDER : This revision is filed challenging the Docket order dt.07.06.2013 in OS.No.41 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed by petitioner seeking a declaration of his title in respect of an extent of Acs.7.38 gts. in Sy.No.51/A at Buddikonda Shivar Mandal, Neredigonda District, Adilabad, for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the above land; for correction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(6)ALD268
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 26-7-2005 in A.P. No. 1 of 2002 passed by District Registrar, Vizianagaram, respondent No. 2. 2. Under document dated 2-8-2002 an extent of Ac.1.08 cents of dry land in old Survey No. 197/1 (New Survey Nos. 197/2CP and 197/2E.2P) of Kothavalasa village and Mandal, Vizianagarm District, was purported to be sold in favour of respondent No. 4 by the petitioners for a sale consideration of Rs. 1.00 lakh. The said document described the names of as many as 15 persons, including the two petitioners herein, as the vendors. However, it was signed by the petitioners alone. The said document was presented for registration by respondent No. 4 before respondent No. 1. On receipt of the said document, respondent No. 1 issued summons to the petitioners. On 24-10-2002 the petitioners were present before respondent No. 1. On 28-10-2002 respondent No. 1 passed order, whereby he refused to register ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos. 2296; 2298; 3717 o01. 11.2012 C.R.P.No. 2296 of 2007 The Collector under Section 47A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and District Registrar (R & S) Department, Hyderabad & another M/s Asrani Inns & Resorts (P) Limited, rep. By its Director Sachin J. Joshi, Secunderabad. Counsel for the petitioners : G.P. for Arbitration Counsel for the respondent : Sri S. Malla Rao HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2296, 2298 and 3717 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: These three revisions arise under identical facts and between the same parties. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. One Sri Shafiuddin Babu Khan was the owner of very large extent of property at Tilak Road, Hyderabad. Through two sale deeds, dated 27.08.1988, he sold 2952 and 2950 square yards respectively in favour of M/s.Asrani Inns & Resorts Private Limited, sole respondent herein, and 11 of its shareholders. Through another sale deed, dated 31.07...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.30792 o02. 01.2013 Mir Hussain Ali Khan State of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt.,Revenue Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad and 5 others. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.K.Raghuveer Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.6: Mr.Mir Masood Khan ?Cases referred:1. 2011 (1) ALD 6.2 AIR 196.SC 68.3 AIR 197.SC 89.4 (1998) 2 SCC 64.5 AIR 196.SC 98.6 AIR 200.SC 445.7 2001 (6) ALD 39.(FB2001. (8) SCC 52.9 AIR 198.SC 68.10 AIR 195.Andhra Pradesh 280 (Vol.46, C.85) Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.5 in not receiving and registering the documents in respect of Acs.5-13 guntas of land in Survey No.373/1 and Acs.1-05 guntas of land in Survey No.373/3 total admeasuring Acs.6-18 guntas situated at Moula Ali Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as "the subject property"), a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.30526 of 2012 and batch (W.P.Nos.24468, 33025, 33461, 34075, 34099, 34545, 34905, 34965, 35338, 35441, 35473, 35598, 35737, 35868, 35997, 36084, 36430, 36471, 36859, 37359, 37906, 28461, 34231, 35505, 38844, 30016, 32176, 33370, 33453, 33535, 33923, 34535, 34596, 34604, 34898, 34959, 35476, 35483, 36918, 36937, 37291, 38067, 39740, 37607, 33282, 33267, 33272, 33872, 34254, 34969, 34523, 35257, 35166, 27915, 32179, 32408, 33956, 34197, 34202, 34513, 34521, 34544, 34559, 34611, 34732, 34820, 34821, 34828, 34830, 35019, 35058, 35156, 35499, 36083, 31426, 32030, 32055, 34774, 35043, 35344, 35559, 35808, 38385, 32690, 33218, 33442, 35225, 34018, 34635, 34662, 35110, 35144, 35165, 35183, 35235, 38221 and 38231of 2012) 31-12-2012 W.P.No.30526/2012 Raavi Satish The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration & Stamps) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others HEAD NOTE: Counsel for petitioner : S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD335; 2008(1)ALT578
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, who was the licensee to sell Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor (IL & FL) by shop in respect of Shop No. 2, Ward No. 2 of Madhira Village, Khammam district for the period from 1.7:2005 to 30.6.2006, filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondents in collecting licence fee for the period from 1.7.2005 to 30.11.2005 as illegal. He also sought for a consequential direction to refund the licence fee paid for the said period.2. The undisputed facts are stated as under:Respondent No. 2 issued notification, published in Khammam District Gazette No. 19 of 2005 dated 26.5.2005 calling for tenders for grant of lease of right to sell IL & FL by shop under Rule 5 of the Ahdhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules 2005 (for short 'the Rules'). The petitioner filed his tender for shop No. 2, Ward No. 2 of Madhira village and he became the highest bidder in the aucti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
G. ROHINI, J.O R D E R :1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.2875 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the VII-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the Court below holding that the document dated 16.12.2004 produced by the plaintiff in evidence is insufficiently stamped and requires payment of proper stamp duty and penalty under Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.2. The facts, in brief, are as under:The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.2875 of 2006 against the respondents herein/defendants for specific performance of the "agreement of sale and construction" dated 16.12.2004. When the said agreement was sought to be marked as Ex.P-1 through P.W.1, an objection was raised by the counsel for the defendants as to the admissibility of the said document on the ground that it was ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.ORDER:1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21-09-2011, passed in I.A. No.115 of 2011 in O.S. No.55 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.2. The Petitioner herein is the first Defendant in O.S. No.55 of 2005, first Respondent herein is the Plaintiff and the Respondents Nos.2 to 4 herein are the Defendants Nos.2 to 4 in the said suit.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner herein is the elder stepbrother of the first respondent-plaintiff. The petitioner herein, his mother and his elder sister filed O.S. No.87 of 1976 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam against the first respondent herein and his elder sister for partition of the family land and the house property, the said suit was decreed. In the Appeal i.e. in A.S. No.163 of 1978, the District Court, allowed the Appeal in part and accordingly final decree was passed in I.A. No.450 of 1978 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Common Order: 1. Since common point arises for consideration in all these Revisions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners in these Revisions are third parties to O.S.Nos.58 of 2007 and 154 of 2007 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy. 3. Both these suits had been filed for specific performance and permanent injunction. 4. O.S.No.58 of 2007 was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 in C.R.P.Nos.1156 of 2014 and 1159 of 2014 against 5th respondent therein originally. Thereafter respondent Nos.6 to 14 were impleaded as defendant Nos.2 to 9. 5. O.S.No.154 of 2007 was filed by 1st respondent in C.R.P.Nos.1158 of 2014 and 1161 of 2014 against 2nd respondent therein and respondent Nos.3 to 11 have been impleaded therein subsequently. 6. The subject matter of both these suits is land in Sy.Nos.833, 834, 836, 837 and 838 of Patancheru village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. In O.S.No.154 of 2007 only Ac.3.00 is the subject matter while in O.S....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1975AP91
Sriramulu, J. 1. O. S. No. 14 of 1962 was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam, by the wife against her husband (defendant No. 1) husband's adopted son (defendant No. 2) and husband's brother (defendant No. 3) for the recovery of possession of the two items of plaint A' schedule properties which consisted of wet land measuring Ac. 6-88 cents in Medur village, and for past and future mesne profits, on the basis or the registered gift-deed dated 11-9-1951 executed in her favour by her husband, defendant No. 1,2. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the said gift deed was executed under coercion and was, therefore, not valid and binding on them. Defendant No. 2 claimed rights to the plaint schedule properties of defendant No. 1 as the adopted son of D-l. Defendant No. 3, the brother of defendant No. 1, claimed rights to some of the properties of the 1st defendant on the basis of certain gift deeds.3. The trial Court held that the gift-deed, on the basis o...
Tag this Judgment!