This tag is associated with 7 posts

Apex court allowed the appeal and condoned the delay and remand the matter to lower court for payment of deficit court fee = Bona fide financial constraint is a valid ground for seeking extention of time for payment of court fee – If the plaintiff is unable to pay court fee, he is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional district legal service authority and Taluk Legal Services Committee seeking for grant of legal aid for sanction of court fee amount payable on the suit before the trial court. = Delay can be condoned not on pure technical points but on equity of justice = When nothing is there to find a fault on the affidavit of the petitioner, it can be considered as a valid ground for allowing the petition = MANOHARAN …APPELLANT Vs. SIVARAJAN & ORS. …RESPONDENTS = http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40990

Apex court allowed the appeal  and condoned the delay and remand the matter to lower     court for payment of deficit court fee =      Bona fide financial constraint is a valid ground for seeking extention of time for payment of court fee – If the plaintiff is unable to pay court fee, he  is  at  liberty  to  approach … Continue reading

motor accident claims =the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others[1] and found that even if the driver of the vehicle does not have a valid driving license so far as the third parties are concerned, the insurance company is liable to pay the same.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO   M.A.C.M.A. No. 2681 of 2011   JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the judgment dated 23.04.2004 in M.O.P.No.1274 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam questioning the liability of the insurance company.   A claim for compensation was made for … Continue reading

senior civil judge courts of A.P. has got jurisdiction to entertain the cases under Indian succession act=This Court in R.O.C.No.40/So/72.2 – under the provision of Section 19 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 (Act 19 of 1972) and in super cession of the previous Notification on the subject, authorized all Subordinate Judges (including the Additional Judges in the City Civil Courts) to take cognizance of any proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (Act 39 of 1925) which cannot be disposed of by the District Delegates. 3. Therefore, in view of the above proceedings, this Court authorized all the Subordinate Judges to take cognizance of the proceedings under Indian Succession Act. Hence, the impugned order is not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be set aside.


service matter = for appointment in job= In a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam vs. K.B.N.Visweswara Rao (1996 (6) SCALE 676), it was held that whose names are enrolled with the Employment Exchange and who have been sponsored will be considered and also other candidates, who have responded to the notification for public employment will also be considered.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:   THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU   WRIT PETITION No.19302 OF 2011   BETWEEN: Thalamanchi Sanath Kumar S/o.Jaya Kumar Reddy …. Petitioner AND The Regional Manager, Syndicate Bank, Plot No.5, Rutwik Enclave, A.K. … Continue reading

agency area and agency courts= the suits are to be instituted before the specialized authorities in agency areas, the procedure for adjudication of those suits is similar to the suits filed under C.P.C. Issues are required to be framed, based upon the pleadings, the parties are permitted to adduce evidence and the concerned authority discharging the functions of the Court can render its judgment. In the instant case, the appellants herein presented a plaint claiming the relief of perpetual injunction. The respondents on their part filed a written statement. The Agent to Government ought to have framed an issue and then permitted the parties to adduce evidence. Instead, a report was called for from the Tahsildar. Such a course is totally impermissible in law. To certain extent, the appellants had also contributed for the improper disposal of the appeal. Based upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the appellants have amended the plaint schedule. Taking these developments into account, the Agent to Government dismissed the suit, leaving it open to the appellants to pursue the further remedies. The procedure adopted by the Agent to Government was not at all correct. He ought to have permitted the parties to adduce evidence and then decide the matter on merits. There was absolutely no justification to dispose of the suit without recording any evidence. On this short ground, the A.S. is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Agent to Government, Kakinada for fresh consideration and disposal on merits, after recording evidence.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY   A.S.No.1014 of 2010   JUDGMENT:   The parties hail from a scheduled area in East Godavari District.  The appellants filed O.S.No.10 of 2008 before the Agent to Government, East Godavari District at Kakinada against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4.00 in … Continue reading

when the original owner died prior to execution of general power of attorney infavour of defendant, the question of defendantvendor said to be sold the suit property to the defendant does not arise.Considering the aforesaid evidence and the documents as mentioned above, it amply transpires that the plaintiff has made its case especially to the effect that Lakshmikanthaiah died on 03-04-1997 and under Exs.A-1 to A-3, they acquired title. Whereas all the documents filed in support of the defendant, especially they are the purchasers under Exs.B-6 to B-8 and earlier purchasers under Exs.B-5 and B-6, could not have any assistance. In view of the death of Badai Lakshmikanthaiah much earlier, there could not have been any such transaction in his name or in respect of any right, title and interest either of him or of the persons who succeeded. There is no dispute in regard to the execution of Exs.A-1 to A-3 by the sons of Badai Lakshmikanthaiah and the relationship inter se and supported the version to the effect that Badai Lakshmikanthaiah died on 03-04-1997. Apart from Ex.A-5, death certificate, which has been filed by the plaintiff, which virtually stood proved and remained unrebbutted by the examination of PW-3, there is also another document in Ex.A-4, legal heir certificate issued by the M.R.O., Ramchandrapuram, which also reiterates the fact that Badai Lakshmikanthaiah died on 03-04-1997 and the said certificate was issued after due enquiry. Further it discloses that on the strength of the certificates issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Edula Nagulapally and the MRO, it is to be certified that Badai Lakshmikantham or Lakshmikanthaiah S/o Narayana died on 03-04-1997 leaving behind the family members as mentioned therein. Ex.A-5, as stated above, shows his death on 03-04-1997. These two proceedings, inspite of knowledge on the part of the defendant, have remained unchallenged in the manner known to law. Thus it conclusively proves that the original pattedar Lakshmikanthaiah died on 03-04-1997. Therefore, the specific plea taken, though without any date as such, by the defendant that Lakshmikathaiah died in the year 2004 is incorrect and the said plea has totally remained unproved. The burden in this regard, which stands shifted to the defendant, has not been in any way taken care of nor there is any attempt to discharge the same. It is to be seen that DW-2, their own witness, who has been declared as hostile admits about the death of Lakshmikanthaiah about 15 or 20 years back. It is also to be taken that Exs.A-4 and A-5 are the public documents as per Section 74(1) (i) and (ii) of the Indian Evidence Act and certified copies thereof are sufficient enough proof for the contents as contemplated under Section 74. Under Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is ample presumption arising in regard to the genuineness of these copies apart from the fact that they have been already proved by the appellant through PW-3. Therefore, there is no reason to cast any spell of doubt on these documents. Whereas no foundation has been laid much less any proof is brought forth by the defendant to rebut the presumptions and correctness in respect of Ex.A-5. The said Ex.A-5 is perfectly in the format in Form-10 as contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1977. Therefore, Ex.A-5 stands amply proved. Thus the approach of the Court below and the finding based thereon is totally erroneous and liable to be set at naught. In view of the aforesaid findings as arrived at, we hold that the plaintiff has not only established valid right, title and interest in his favour, but also established the fact that Lakshmikanthaiah died on 03-04-1997. Thus the findings of the Court below are totally erroneous and liable to be set aside and further that the defendant has utterly failed to establish their specific pleas, on which heavy burden lies on them to prove about the alleged death in the year 2004. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and decree of the Court below in O.S.No.83 of 2006, dated 08-02-2010 is set aside.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO   A.S.No. 240 of 2010 Date:  14-03-2011   Between:   VLS Prasad ……….. appellant and M/s. Strip India Limited ……… respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO   A,S.No. 240 of 2010   JUDGMENT: (Per BPR, J) … Continue reading

1. Whether the plaintiff acquired title to the schedule lands by adverse possession? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to protect his possession under law and whether he can claim positive relief of perpetual injunction in his favour in a suit filed by him?=a person who obtained the possession of the property under executory terms of contract of sale, cannot ask for declaration of his title even on the ground that he remained in possession of the property for more than 12 years period and contending that his possession is adverse to the real owner. The Apex Court said in the above two judgments that possession of such person cannot be adverse and he cannot set up the plea of adverse possession. Therefore, in my view the trial court has fallen into error in declaring the title of the plaintiff holding that he perfected his title to the schedule mentioned property by adverse possession against the defendants 1 and 2 who are the real owners and defendants 3 and 4 who are the subsequent purchasers. However, by virtue of the doctrine of part performance embodied in Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff can protect his possession from defendants 1 and 2 who sold the property to him under the simple sale deed, so also he can protect his possession from defendants 3 and 4 who have knowledge of the earlier sale transaction in his favour under Exs.A-1 and A-1(a) sale deed. It is argued before me by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that the plaintiff having recourse to the doctrine of part performance can only protect his possession but he cannot file a suit for simple injunction by his positive act seeking a decree in his favour. It is true that Section 53-A only operates as a bar against the defendants in the present case from enforcing any rights against the plaintiff other than those which were provided under Exs.A-1 and A-1(a) simple sale deed. Although the section does not confer title on the person who took possession of the property in part performance of the contract, the law is now well settled that when all conditions of the section are satisfied as in the present case, the possession of the person must be protected by the court whether he comes as a plaintiff or defendant. The only embargo is that Section 53-A cannot be taken in aid by the transferee to establish his right as owner of the property. But the transferee can protect his possession having recourse to Section 53-A either by instituting a suit for injunction as a plaintiff or by defending the suit filed by the transferor or subsequent purchasers as a defendant. It is also well settled that the transferee can very well file a suit for injunction to protect his possession even though his remedy to file a suit for specific performance of contract is barred by limitation.no adverse possession. injunction for protection can be granted

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO A.S. No.713 OF 1993 08-06-2011 M.Gopal and another K.Janga Reddy and another Counsel for petitioners: Sri Yadaiah Counsel for respondents:Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy :JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.1992 passed by the Subordinate Judge at Sanga Reddy in O.S.No.49 of 1986. I have heard … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,903,094 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,908 other subscribers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com