THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA

Though born in our Telegana of Karimnagar District. He enrolled as an advocate at Bombay - Maharashtra and Goa Bar Counsil in the year 1978. He shifted his practice to A.P.in the year 1990 and practiced in our A.P.HIGH COURT.In the year 1993 he was recruited directly as District Judge
He worked in different places and in different posts
1. ADJ of  Srikakulam 
2. III ADJ and (3) II ADJ of Kurnool District 
3. Senior faculty member of A.P.JA., Secunderabad 
4. Spl. Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad 
5. Chairman, A.P. Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 
6. Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad 
7. ADJ, Khammam (9) Prl. D.J., Mahabubnagar 
8. Director of Prosecutions, Hyderabad 
9. Prl. D.J., Srikakulam 
10. The Registrar, A.P.A.T., Hyderabad 
11. The Chairman, Sales-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Vizag.
12. Elevated as Addl. Judge, High Court of A.P., on 14-10-2009. Appointed as Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh and assumed charge as such, on 26-11-2010.

Justice B.N.Rao Nalla  rendered wonderful services to the legal fraternity by his wonderful judgements.

On his retirement we are missing an eminent and wonderful Justice.

may god bless him & his family with all good health and prosperity 

JUSTICE B.N. Rao Nalla's -         some of his works - the beautiful judgments.

NO DRAWING OF PRESUMPTION UNDER SEC.118 OF EVIDENCE ACT WHEN THE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE THE VALIDITY AND BINDING NATURE BY SUPPORT OF CONSIDERATION AGAINST THE LEGAL HEIRS OF ORIGINAL BORROWER 26 Feb 2012 19:36 by murali mohan mandagaddi

... FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE   PRESENT   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BNRAO NALLA   SECOND APPEAL No.19 OF 2012   Between : B. Srinivasa Rao.                                         - - -                  Appellant .               AND ...
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT ‎>‎ NO DRAWING OF PRESUMPTION UNDER SEC.118 OF EVIDENCE ACT WHEN THE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE THE VALIDITY AND BINDING NATURE BY SUPPORT OF CONSIDERATION AGAINST THE LEGAL HEIRS OF ORIGINAL BORROWER

NO INJUNCTION - WHEN THE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE TITLE, POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT. SECOND APPEAL COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DISTURB THE FINDING OF FACT. 28 Feb 2012 00:14 by murali mohan mandagaddi

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA   SECOND APPEAL No.175 OF 2012   Date: 14.02.2012   Between: Kollam Lakshmi Durga ..... Appellant AND   Rev. Dr.Rachapudi Danaiah (died ...
PROPERTY LAWS ‎>‎ NO INJUNCTION - WHEN THE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE TITLE, POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT. SECOND APPEAL COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DISTURB THE FINDING OF FACT.

NO INJUNCTION- WHEN THE EXISTANCE OF THE VERY PROPERTY IS IN DOUBT. 28 Feb 2012 00:05 by murali mohan mandagaddi

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA   SECOND APPEAL No.157 OF 2012   Date: 14.02.2012   Between: Officers Colony Residents Welfare Association ..... Appellant AND D.Balakrishna  Reddy ...
PROPERTY LAWS ‎>‎ NO INJUNCTION- WHEN THE EXISTANCE OF THE VERY PROPERTY IS IN DOUBT.

IN THE ABSENCE OF JOINT PROPERTY, THE QUESTION OF PARTITION DOES NOT ARISE 26 Feb 2012 19:22 by murali mohan mandagaddi

... FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE   PRESENT   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BNRAO NALLA   SECOND APPEAL No.8 OF 2012   Between : Vallamkondu Subbarayudu.                     - - -                  Appellant .               AND   Vallamkondu ...
INHERITANCE LAWS ‎>‎ IN THE ABSENCE OF JOINT PROPERTY, THE QUESTION OF PARTITION DOES NOT ARISE

PARTITION - WHEN THE PROPERTY PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE MOTHR WAS PROVED BY JOINT FUNDS OF THE BROTHERS BUT NOT BY THE FUND OF ONE BROTHER, THE PROPERTY IS A JOINT PROPERTY AND IS LIABLE TO BE DIVIDED EQUALLY. THE GIFT DEED EXECUTED BY MOTHER INFAVOUR OF ONE SON NOT VALID. 28 Feb 2012 00:26 by murali mohan mandagaddi

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA S.A.No. 214 of 2012 JUDGMENT:             The plaintiff filed O.S.No.606 of 2006 on the file of the ...
PROPERTY LAWS ‎>‎ PARTITION - WHEN THE PROPERTY PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE MOTHR WAS PROVED BY JOINT FUNDS OF THE BROTHERS BUT NOT BY THE FUND OF ONE BROTHER, THE PROPERTY IS A JOINT PROPERTY AND IS LIABLE TO BE DIVIDED EQUALLY. THE GIFT DEED EXECUTED BY MOTHER INFAVOUR OF ONE SON NOT VALID.

WHEN THE PERSON IS NOT A DIRECT TENANT OF TTD, HE CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS DISPLACED PERSON AND AS SUCH HE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ACCOMADATION ON PAR WITH OTHER DISPOSSESSED TENANTS. 26 Feb 2012 19:52 by murali mohan mandagaddi

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.NRAO NALLA SECOND APPEAL No.88 OF 2012 JUDGMENT:           The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the Courts below i.e. trial Court as well as ...
PROPERTY LAWS ‎>‎ WHEN THE PERSON IS NOT A DIRECT TENANT OF TTD, HE CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS DISPLACED PERSON AND AS SUCH HE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ACCOMADATION ON PAR WITH OTHER DISPOSSESSED TENANTS.

the trial Court dismissed the suit treating Ex.A1 – delivery challan-cum-proforma invoice and Ex.A2 – Invoice No.27 as concocted ones and observing that since the defendant was a stranger, the burden was more on the plaintiff to prove the same, however the plaintiff failed to prove his case. 4 Nov 2012 21:12 by murali mohan mandagaddi

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA   S.A.  No. 118 of 2012   DATED: 19.04.2012 Between:   Rajender Kumar Gupta                                                                    .. Appellant   And   F1 Fashion Corner                                                                   ..    Respondent                                                       ...
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT ‎>‎ the trial Court dismissed the suit treating Ex.A1 – delivery challan-cum-proforma invoice and Ex.A2 – Invoice No.27 as concocted ones and observing that since the defendant was a stranger, the burden was more on the plaintiff to prove the same, however the plaintiff failed to prove his case.

THE PLAINTIFF HAS TO PROVE HIS CASE WITH OUT DEPENDING ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENDANT. SIMPLY BECAUSE THE NAME OF THE PLAINTIFF FOUND PLACE IN REVENUE RECORDS DOES NOT CONFER ON HIM ANY TITLE AND POSSESSION 26 Feb 2012 20:06 by murali mohan mandagaddi

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.NRAO NALLA   SECOND APPEAL No.124 OF 2012 JUDGMENT :           The plaintiff preferred this appeal assailing the judgment and decree in A.S. No.47 ...
PROPERTY LAWS ‎>‎ THE PLAINTIFF HAS TO PROVE HIS CASE WITH OUT DEPENDING ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENDANT. SIMPLY BECAUSE THE NAME OF THE PLAINTIFF FOUND PLACE IN REVENUE RECORDS DOES NOT CONFER ON HIM ANY TITLE AND POSSESSION

For seeking temporary injunction, the petitioner has to prove that she is in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property on the date of filing of the suit and that she has to comply the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience in her favour and irreparable loss being caused to her if temporary injunction is not granted. The petitioner in order to prove her possession over the petition schedule property has filed documents - Exs.A.3, A.4 and A.5. But, Exs.A.3 to A.5 are issued based on Exs.A.1 and A.7, and these documents do not in any way establish the possession of the petitioner over the petition schedule property. Except, Exs.A.3 to A.5, the petitioner has not filed any authentic material to show that she is in possession of the petition schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. 8 Nov 2012 02:07 by murali mohan mandagaddi

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.NRAO NALLA        C.M. A. No.437 of 2005  04.10.2012       Urumula Yellamma w/o.late Venkatappa Reddy     1)Pullapati Raja Rao, 2 ...
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ‎>‎ For seeking temporary injunction, the petitioner has to prove that she is in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property on the date of filing of the suit and that she has to comply the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience in her favour and irreparable loss being caused to her if temporary injunction is not granted. The petitioner in order to prove her possession over the petition schedule property has filed documents - Exs.A.3, A.4 and A.5. But, Exs.A.3 to A.5 are issued based on Exs.A.1 and A.7, and these documents do not in any way establish the possession of the petitioner over the petition schedule property. Except, Exs.A.3 to A.5, the petitioner has not filed any authentic material to show that she is in possession of the petition schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

AO-1 in C.C. No.12 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases - cum - IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1183 of 2003 assailing the orders of his conviction passed by the said Court in the said case by judgment dated 29-10-2003 finding him guilty for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") and convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and further to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act, whereas, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.783 of 2004 questioning acquittal of AO-2 in the said case for the same offences. 13 Apr 2011 07:14 by murali mohan mandagaddi

... with and consequently convicting AO-1 and acquitting AO-2. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.NRAO NALLA           CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1183 of 2003 AND 783 OF 2004        07-03 ...
SERVICE MATTERS ‎>‎ AO-1 in C.C. No.12 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases - cum - IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1183 of 2003 assailing the orders of his conviction passed by the said Court in the said case by judgment dated 29-10-2003 finding him guilty for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") and convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and further to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act, whereas, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.783 of 2004 questioning acquittal of AO-2 in the said case for the same offences.


false pleadings are nothing but amounting to mental cruelty 24 Mar 2011 23:39 by murali mohan mandagaddi

... HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA                 F.C.A.No.246 of 2008  03-08-2010  Kamma Damodar ...
MARRIAGE LAWS ‎>‎ false pleadings are nothing but amounting to mental cruelty

the ingredients of Section 304-A IPC were not established; that identity of the accused as driver of the accident vehicle was not established 25 Mar 2011 02:00 by murali mohan mandagaddi

... Section 134 read with 187 of Motor Vehicles Act.. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA         Criminal Revision Case No.100 of 2007 31-01-2011  Amarthaluri John ...
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE ‎>‎ the ingredients of Section 304-A IPC were not established; that identity of the accused as driver of the accident vehicle was not established

medical witness, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P-4 discloses that no internal or external injuries were found present and that the cause of death was due to neurogenic shock as stated in Ex.P-5 final opinion. It is contended that the evidence of PW.5-medical witness in certain particulars is vague and his evidence is not in the context of the matter. Therefore, it is contended that the death of the deceased was not due to assault by any of the accused. 24 Mar 2011 04:24 by murali mohan mandagaddi

... not due to assault by any of the accused.  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA         Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2004 07-03-2011  Medikeri Tilak and ...
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE ‎>‎ medical witness, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P-4 discloses that no internal or external injuries were found present and that the cause of death was due to neurogenic shock as stated in Ex.P-5 final opinion. It is contended that the evidence of PW.5-medical witness in certain particulars is vague and his evidence is not in the context of the matter. Therefore, it is contended that the death of the deceased was not due to assault by any of the accused.

since he failed to prove his tenancy over the schedule property and that as per Ex.B-4 letter of the Tahsildar, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the Station House Officer, Malkajgiri Police Station dated 17-12-2011, he is a trespasser over plot No.14 of schedule property and patta for the schedule property is in the name of the predecessor of defendant Nos.1 to 4. Thus, there is no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff for granting temporary injunction and if the same is not granted no loss much less irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff. 14 Nov 2012 01:14 by murali mohan mandagaddi

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.NRAO NALLA           CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.644 OF 2012          05-10-2012  T. Satyanarayana  Y. Lakshma Reddy @ Lachi Reddy & 6 others     Counsel for the ...
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ‎>‎ since he failed to prove his tenancy over the schedule property and that as per Ex.B-4 letter of the Tahsildar, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the Station House Officer, Malkajgiri Police Station dated 17-12-2011, he is a trespasser over plot No.14 of schedule property and patta for the schedule property is in the name of the predecessor of defendant Nos.1 to 4. Thus, there is no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff for granting temporary injunction and if the same is not granted no loss much less irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff.

the accused officer has succeeded in proving the preponderance of probabilities in favour of his case by establishing the fact that the amount of Rs.500/- received from PW1 was towards additional security deposit, but not an illegal gratification 24 Mar 2011 04:36 by murali mohan mandagaddi

... in the Court of the Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. cases, Vijayawada for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 11 and 13(2) read with ... 2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Act. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.NRAO NALLA        Crl.A. No. 1316 of 2003 03-03-2011  Gajula Pandu Ranga Rao ...
SERVICE MATTERS ‎>‎ the accused officer has succeeded in proving the preponderance of probabilities in favour of his case by establishing the fact that the amount of Rs.500/- received from PW1 was towards additional security deposit, but not an illegal gratification

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.