advocatemmmohan
Markapur
Sec.302 , 498 A I.P.C = F.I.R. to sub inspector that accidentally sari caught with fire of stove = Dying declaration recorded by Magistrate revealed that husband burnt her alive by pouring kerosin = Explanation by parents that F.I.R. statement was given at the instance of accused sister = Conviction is proper = NANDEPU ABRAHAM Appellant (s) VERSUS STATE OF A.P. Respondent(s) = published in http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp
F.I.R. to sub inspector that accidentally sari caught with fire of stove = Dying declaration recorded by Magistrate revealed that husband burnt her alive by pouring kerosin = Explanation by parents that F.I.R. statement was given at the instance of accused sister = Conviction is proper = ‘ PW-8 N. Victor Immanuel, at … Continue reading
In a suit filed for declaration of title and consequential mandatory injunction, two aspects become necessary. First is that the plaintiff must independently prove his title over the property without depending upon the weakness of the defendant. The second is that even if the plaintiff has proved his title, the defendant can successfully resist the suit in case, he proves a title, which is superior to the one pleaded and proved by the plaintiff. Many a time both these aspects are dealt with together and a finding is recorded. In the instant case, the respondents proved their title by filing Ex.A-1, dated 21-03-1966. Both on account of the fact that the document is more than 30 years old and that there is no controversy as to its execution, the document was held proved.Though a plea was taken that a deed of settlement was executed in favour of the Mosque in respect of the suit schedule property, the document was not made part of record. Thereby, the presumption provided for under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act gets attracted. Even if the document was made part of record, the fact remains that it is almost a quarter century later to the transaction covered by Ex.A-1.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.218 OF 2011 24-06-2011 Shaik Rahim S/o.Habibulla Shaik Nasar Ahmed S/o. Late Ahmed and others Counsel for the Appellant:Mr. M.V. Suresh Counsel for the Respondents: None. :ORDER: This Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent judgments rendered by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur … Continue reading
A.P.Society registration Act =The A.P. Legislature enacted the new Act in the year 2001. Section 31 of the new Act repeals the Societies Registration Act 1960. However, sub-section (2) thereof makes it clear that any steps taken under the old Act shall be deemed to have been taken under the new enactment= The society was registered about half a century ago. Its affairs were being administered by the managing committee, comprising of various office bearers, including President Treasurer and Secretary. The record discloses that the 2nd respondent and the father of the 3rd respondent contributed a sum of Rs.25,000/-, which was quite a considerable amount at that time and that the same was used in acquiring properties for the establishment of a Degree College at Markapur. As a measure of recognition of their generosity, the members resolved to appoint them as Presidents in terms of three years each with hereditary rights. This arrangement was incorporated in bye-law 9(b). The petitioner or for that matter, anyone did not raise objection for the past five decades. .=What Section 14 mandates is an election to the committee comprising of not less than three members. At any rate, the arrangement that was in existence under the old enactment is saved under sub- section (2) of Section 32. The trial Court has taken note of these developments and dismissed the S.R.O.P.= This Court is not inclined to take any different view.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1043 OF 2011 05-07-2011 Chirlamacherla Chinna Venkata Subbaiah Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Arts Counsel for the petitioner:Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Counsel for respondents:– :ORDER: The 1st respondent-society was registered way back in the year 1966. It appears that respondent No.2 and his brother, by name Balaratnam, gave a … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 