Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(1)ALD504
ORDERS.V. Maruthi, J1. This is the plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree in OS No.134 of 1988 dated 20-1-1993 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram. The plaintiff M/s. Montari Industries Limited, New Delhi, filed the said suit for recovery of Rs.5,06,565-76 ps. with interest at 18% p.a. from 1-10-1988 till realisation and for costs.2. It is not necessary to refer to the averments in the plaint and in the written statement in extenso for the purpose of disposing of this appeal. Suffice to say that the plaintiff is a company incorporated at New Delhi and is a manufacturer of pesticides and insecticides. The 1st defendant is a partnership firm with defendants 2 to 5 as its partners. The 1st defendant is a dealer in fertilisers and pesticides and purchases pesticides and insecticides from the plaintiff for the purpose of retail shop. The 1st defendant purchased the goods from the plaintiff and failed to pay the amount and became due to the tune of Rs.6,67,342.80 by 31st ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008AP4; 2007(6)ALD77
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.245 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Bhongir, Nalgonda District.2. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for injunction. Along with the plaint, they filed an agreement of sale and some other documents. During pendency of the suit, the counsel for the plaintiffs filed a Memo stating that the matter is settled amicably out of Court and the plaintiffs intends to withdraw the suit as not pressed. In view of the Memo and in the presence of both parties, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir dismissed the suit as not pressed without costs, through the order dated 13.07.2007. Later the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.656 of 2007 under Order 13, Rule VII (2) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. requesting the Court to return the unmarked documents including the agreement of sale dated 17.10.2006. The trial Court ordered return of documents 2 to 5 and in respect of document No. 1 i.e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(4)ALD458; 1998(4)ALT626
1. Rule Nisi.2. The petitioner is a retired Deputy Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of A.P. He states that prior to his retirement from the Government service the petitioner applied the State Government in the year 1983 for allotment of a residential plot of land for construction of a house. The Government issued orders on 19-2-1987 directing the A.P. Housing Board to sell him a plot measuring 233.33 Sq. yards at Santoshnagar Colony, Hyderabad at the rate of Rs.600/- per Sq.yard. The petitioner felt that the value fixed at Rs.600/- per Sq. yard was excessive. He challenged the fixation of price through Writ Petition No. 9575/87 before this Court. The Writ petition was disposed of on 10-6-1991. The Court held that the price fixed at Rs.600/-per Sq.yard was arbitrary and directed the respondents therein to re-fix the market value in the light of the basic value fixed by the Department of Registration for similar lands in the locality and also in accordanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.Order:1. The short issue that arise for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the decision of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg, Anantapur district, overruling the petitioner's objection for marking of unregistered partition deed dated 20-02-1994 suffers from any illegality.2. The petitioner filed O.S.No.43 of 2008 against the respondents for perpetual injunction. During the course of chief-examination of D.W.1, he sought to mark an unregistered partition deed dated 20-02-1994. The petitioner raised an objection for marking the said document on the ground that the same is unregistered and insufficiently stamped partition deed, which cannot be admitted in evidence unless it is registered on proper stamp duty. The Court below has admitted the document into evidence as Ex.B-1.3. The law is settled that an unregistered document which requires registration is admissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, for co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.20683 of 2012 and W.P.No.2192 o30. 4-2013 W.P.No.20683 of 2012 Gaddam Laxmaiah and others .. Petitioners The Commissioner and Inspector General,Registration and Stamps Department, M.J. Road, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri Srinivas Polavarapu Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 : Sri Avinash Desai HEAD NOTE: ?CASES REFERRED:1. MANU/AP/0656/2012 - W.P.No.25686/2011, dt. 10-7-2012 2. 2009(7) SCC 36.3. (2012) 1 SCC 65.4. 2006(6) ALT 52.(FB) 5. MANU/SC/1267/2010 = 2012(3) ALT 5.(SC) 6. 2012(4) ALD 41.7. 2009(6) ALT 22.8. AIR 193.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)ALD33
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the first respondent in impounding the documents dated 11-11-1967 and 14-2-1981 by collecting stamp duty of Rs. 5/- and 10 times penalty on each of the documents, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, by further declaring that the said documents are not properly impounded and for other appropriate reliefs. 2. The facts, as narrated by the writ petitioners in the affidavit in support of the writ petition, in nutshell are as follows: It is stated that respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the plaintiff in OS No. 51 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad, had instituted the said suit for partition and separate possession and in support of their claim for the said reliefs, they had submitted two documents dated 11-11-1967 and 14-2-1981 and when an objection was raised, the learned Subordinate Judge referred the said document...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008AP255; 2008(5)ALD279; 2008(5)ALT222
ORDERG. Yethirajulu, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the third defendant in OS No. 230 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli against the orders of the said Court, dated 13.2.2008.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction. During the course of evidence, DW. 1 was examined and through him, the defendants sought to mark a xerox copy of an unregistered sale deed. The plaintiff's Counsel raised an objection that the document is not properly stamped; that it is an unregistered document; that the document is not properly visible and that it is not admissible in evidence, therefore, it shall not be marked. After hearing both parties, the Court passed the following order:The document executed by DW.1 as Ex.B11 is seems to be a Xerox copy said to be executed on a Non-Judl. Stamp paper of Rs. 20/-. The said document said to be executed on 13.11.1991, but the stamp paper purchased on 13.1.1992, further it is the contention of DW.1 that he handed ove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008AP69; 2007(5)ALD556; 2007(5)ALT166
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the notices issued by the second respondent proposing to levy a stamp duty on a document presented by the petitioner, by treating it as deed of settlement.2. One Sri Poduri Viswanatham had three sons, by name, Venkata Satya Somayajulu, Subramanyam and Venkat Rao, and two daughters, by name, Ayyanki Gouri Devi and Vadlamannati Bhadrakali @ Bharathi. After his death, his property was being enjoyed by them in joint. His three sons, and daughter, by name, Gouri Devi, died by 2006. The petitioner is the widow of the eldest son, who is late Venkata Satya Somayajulu.3. The legal heirs of three deceased sons and deceased daughter, and the sole surviving daughter, by name, Bhadrakali, partitioned the property left by late Viswanatham, comprising of an open site admeasuring 351 square yards, and a cash of rupees one lakh, through a partition deed, dated 16-10-2006. The plot was divided into three equal parts of 127 square yard...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)ALD484; 2002(3)ALT717
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Sri Mohan Vinod for the petitioner and Sri A. Sudershan Reddy for the respondent.2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, N. Ram Reddy, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 15-12-2001 passed by the Enrollment Committee of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh in returning his application for admission as advocate on the roll of the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh.3. The order impugned in this writ petition reads thus:'With reference to your application cited above, I am to inform you that the Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh at its meeting held on 13-12-2001 has considered your application and passed the following order: It is stated in the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, that the applicant is stated to be relieved on 6-4-2000. As such the present application in the present form cannot be processed and deserves to be returned as not maintainable. Applicant be informed accordingly. Therefore, I ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2005AP243; 2004(6)ALT739
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. This revision presents an instance as to how the financial necessities of an individual would expose him or her to several compulsions and thereby make them to face the adverse consequences. Though the revision arises out of an order passed in a civil miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, it has a background spread over about three decades.2. The mother of the respondent viz. K. Anasuya was the absolute owner of the property admeasuring 1350 sq. yards in premises No.16-2-705/1/5, Malakpet, Hyderabad. In September 1970, she was in dire need of a sum of Rs.12,000/- and approached one person viz. Ch. Bikshapathy for the same. He paid that amount. On 29.09.1970, a sale deed was executed conveying the said property in his favour and on the same day, an agreement of re-conveyance was executed to the effect that in case, she refunds the same amount within six years, he shall re-convey the property to her.3. Smt. Anasuya offe...
Tag this Judgment!