Posts

C.P.C. - WITNESS SUMMONS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - Order XIII Rule 10 CPC, seeking to issue summons to one Sri Md.Jaffar, who was the Investigating Officer in the above said criminal case, to examine him as a witness with a direction to him to come along with the C.D.file.= the C.D.file and also the deposition are all public documents and, if the petitioner wishes to get the same, he can obtain certified copies of the relevant documents. -Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice deals with the production of records in the custody of a public officer other than a Court. The present application is also not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice. Therefore, having regard to the reasons recorded by the learned District Judge for dismissing the application, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5649 of 2017
ORDER:
 Defendant, in O.S.No.13 of 2011 on the file of the IV
Additional District Judge, Kurnool, is the petitioner in the
present revision, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
 Heard Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for
the petitioner-defendant, and Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned
counsel for the respondent, apart from perusing the material
available before the Court.
 In the present revision, challenge is to the order, dated
23.08.2017, passed by the said Court in I.A.No.252 of 2016.
The respondent herein instituted the above said suit for
damages, claiming a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- on the ground
that he was maliciously prosecuted on the complaint of the
defendant before the CBI Court, Hyderabad in C.C.No.24 of
2006. When the suit stood posted for further evidence of the
defendant, the present application-I.A.No.252 of 2016 came
to be filed, under the provisions of Order XIII Rul…

Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to implead the Government as a party to the suit. The subject suit is one for perpetual injunction = The trial court having observed that the suit on hand being one for perpetual injunction against a private party, the Government cannot be treated as either a proper or a necessary party, dismissed the petition - If it is the claim of petitioner/plaintiff that the Tahsildar C.K.Dinne has passed an erroneous order in respect of alleged rastha in M.C.No.65 of 2016 dated 11-11-2016, the remedy for the petitioner/plaintiff is in a different suitable proceedings but not in the present suit.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2995 of 2017
ORDER:
 This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order
dated 14-6-2017 passed by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Kadapa in I.A.No.875 of 2017 in I.A.No.1840 of 2016 in O.S.No.756
of 2016, whereunder the trial court dismissed the petition filed by
the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to implead
the Government as a party to the suit.
 The subject suit is one for perpetual injunction filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff wherein he sought for inclusion of Government
as a party on the contention that the petitioner/plaintiff is the
absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and there is no rasta
in the suit schedule property and the Tahsildar D.K.Dinne without
enquiry and in collusion with the respondents passed the order dated
11-11-2016 in M.C.No.65 of 2016. The trial court having observed
that the suit on hand being one for perpetual injunction against a
private pa…

no mandate can be issued to the registering authority not to entertain any deed of conveyance presented before him. = The registering authorities have to process deeds of conveyance or any other document presented for registration, which is compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. In accordance with the provisions contained in the Registration Act and Rules made there under, once a document is presented before him by duly complying with all the statutory requirements, as per the provisions of the Act and Rules made there under, he cannot refuse to register the document. Furthermore, registering authority has no competence to go into the merits of the ownership claims of the individuals and enter into disputed questions. Furthermore, as registering authority is required to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act and Rules made there under, no mandate can be issued to the registering authority not to entertain any deed of conveyance presented before him.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.33825 OF 2017
Date: 11.10.2017
Between:
Kuthuru Chinna Venkata subbaiah @ K C Venkatasubbaiah,
S/o. Chinna Pullaiah, Aged 46 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Door No.7/25, T.B.Road, Proddatur town and mandal,
Kadapa district and another.
 …..Petitioners
 and
The State of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Guntur district, A.P. state and others.
…..Respondents
The Court made the following:
 PNR,J
 W.P.No.33825 of 2017
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.33825 OF 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief:
 “to issue writ order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the
action of the Respondents 3 & 4 in registering the
documents bearing No.12 of 2013 and 13 of 2013 and the
documents generated through the Sale deed document
No.12 of 2013 bearing Nos.4497 to 4521 of 2017, 4459 to
4557 of 2017 …

ANNAMARAJU VENKATA NARASIMHAM

Image
చిన్ననాటి 

జ్ఞాపకాల తీపి గురుతులు 

ఒక్కొక్కటి గా చెదరి పోతున్నాయి

బరువెక్కిన హృదయాలు మూగవోయాయి

మౌనంగా నీ నిశ్శబ్ద నిష్క్రమణను వీక్షిస్తూ


అన్నమరాజు వెంకట  నరసింహం 

నా బాల్య మిత్రుడు 

ఫిబ్రవరి 1 వ తేదీన స్వర్గస్తులు అయ్యారు  

వారి ఆత్మకు శాంతి చేకూరాలని  ప్రార్థిస్తూ . 

                                                                                                            మీ
                                                                                    అడ్వకేట్ యం .యం .యం మోహన్

specific performance= it is the defendants who went back = it is also a settled and well established principle of law that the said relief cannot be refused in an arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and inequitable manner. In the instant case, knowing fully well about the existence of Ex.A3 sale agreement in favour of plaintiff, the 3rd defendant purchased the property by way of Ex.A8 sale deed. As observed supra, the defendants proceeded with the transaction pertaining to Ex.A8 sale deed despite Ex.A5 and A7 notices. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the 3rd defendant is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration to have the protection under the provisions of Specific Relief Act. In the considered opinion of this Court, the rejection of primary relief of specific relief of agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff is not only illegal, but also highly unreasonable. If these types of transactions covered by Ex.A8 are allowed to sustain, people will loose faith in the transactions and the rule of law. In the definite opinion of this Court, plaintiff not only pleaded, but also proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and it is the defendants who went back from Ex.A3 agreement of sale and executed unreasonably Ex.A8 sale deed in favour of 3rd defendant.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI     

A.S.No.498 of 1997

06-12-2017

Challa Raju...Petitioner

Pyla Gireenu (died) per L.Rs.and 2 others. ...Respondents

Counsel for Appellant: Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri G.Ramgopal 
Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri P.Sri Raghuram

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:   

? Cases referred:

1.      (2010) 4 SCC 753
2.      (2012) 11 SCC 405
3.      (2010) 10 SCC 512
4.      (2010)  4 SCC  753
5.      (2004) 7 SCC 277
6.      (2004) 6 SCC 325
7.      2011 (1) ALD 296
8.      2011 (5) ALD 508
9.      AIR 2005 SC 439 
10.     (1999) 3 SCC 573
11.     AIR 2003 Bombay 369 
12.     2010(6) ALD 119 (SC)
13.     2014(3) ALD 449



THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI     

A.S.No.498 of 1997


JUDGMENT: 

        Plaintiff in O.S.No.155 of 1988 on the file of Court of III Additional
Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, is the appellant in the present Appeal
Suit, preferred under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure against the
judgment and decree d…

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT AFTER 11 YEARS FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION - MAINTAINABLE In the present case, the amendment is being sought for almost 11 years after the date of the institution of the suit. The plaintiff is not debarred from instituting a new suit seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession on the same basic facts as are pleaded in the plaint seeking relief of issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction and which is pending. In order to avoid multiplicity of suits, it would be a sound exercise of discretion to permit the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession being sought for in the pending suit. The plaintiff has alleged the cause of action for the reliefs now sought to be added as having arisen to him during the pendency of the suit. The merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment. Therefore, on the ground of mere delay, however long it may be, an application for amendment cannot be rejected provided the facts of the case warrant allowing of the amendment - the period of limitation for seeking declaration of title is 3 years as per the provision of the Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act, what is to be noted is that issue of limitation is blend of fact and law and is not a pure question of law. This question need not detain this Court for long as in Pankaja v. Yellappa (1 supra), the Supreme Court while holding that though the plaint is initially filed for permanent injunction there is no bar for permitting the amendment of the plaint to seek the relief of declaration of title in respect of plaint schedule property, had set aside the order of the trial Court rejecting the application seeking for amendment as confirmed by the High Court and had permitted the amendment holding inter alia that the question whether or not the suit seeking the relief of declaration is barred by limitation can be gone into in the main suit. Further, in the decision in M.Chokka Rao v. Sattu Sattamma , this Court having exhaustively dealt with provisions of law under the Indian Limitation Act and the relevant precedents had laid down that when the suit is not for a simple declaration but is for a declaration coupled with further relief, the limitation is 12 years but not 3 years and that Article 58 is not applicable to such suits. .

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI         

Civil Revision Petition No.433 of 2016

20-12-2017

Dhulipalla Srinivasa Rao .. Petitioner

Kandula Govardhan Rao S/o Pullaiah and Another. Respondents   

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Subba Rao

Counsel for Respondent  : Sri Y.Narapa Reddy

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

2004 (6) SCC 415
(2002) 7 SCC 559
2006(1) ALD 16
2008(3) Supreme Court Cases 717 
(2005) 13 SCC 89
(2009) 10 SCC 84
2013 (1) ALD 1 (SC)

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI         

Civil Revision Petition No.433 of 2016
ORDER: 

        This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, is filed by the unsuccessful respondent/2nd defendant assailing
the order, dated 04.01.2016, of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Chirala, passed in IA.no.1264 of 2015 in OS.no.55 of 2010 filed by the
petitioner-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [the Code, for brevit…