Posts

Showing posts from May, 2016

Deposit of title deed requires stamp duty & if it is mortgage , it requires registration though styled as Deposit of title deed = It is relevant here to state that letter dated 29th March, 2007 of the Finance Commissioner inter alia makes instrument of deposit of title-deeds compulsorily registerable under Section 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act. However, the parties may choose to have a memorandum prepared only showing deposit of the title-deeds. In such a case also registration is not required. But in a case in which the memorandum recorded in writing creates right, liability or extinguishes those, same requires registration.=The document was executed on a white paper. Article 7 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was amended by substituting the said Article under the Act 19 of 2005 w.e.f. 01-08-2005 requiring proper stamp duty. Article 35 of Schedule 1-A of the Act deals with Mortgage deed. In either of the cases, it requires stamp duty and if it is a mortgage deed, it further requires registration though it is styled as Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO            

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.432 of 2015  

23-11-2015

Satti Venkateswara ReddyPetitioner

Mallidi Venkata Reddy Respondent  

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri J.Sreenivasa Rao

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Gangadhar Chamarthy

<Gist :

>Head Note :

? Cases referred

1.AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1591
2.1996 (3) Andhra Law Times 605
3.2014 (1) Andhra Legal Decisions 13 (SC)


HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO          
Civil Revision Petition No.432 of 2015

ORDER:

        The defendant in O.S.No.109 of 2010 is the petitioner herein and the
respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit on the file of IV Additional District
Judge, Tanuku, seeking a preliminary decree for Rs.8,95,101/- against the
defendant based on equitable mortgage created in respect of the property of
dry land of an extent of Ac.0.10 cents in R.S.No.437/1 and an extent of
Ac.0.64 cents in R.S.No.437/2 situated in Penugonda village and Mandal,
West Godavari Dist…

Rasta rights - Requires No Registration =licence is granted to Satyanarayana, the plaintiff, to use the same passage which was already in existence and which was provided for the lands of the said Krishna Rao @ Krishnamurthy, the executant of the document. Admittedly, no title or ownership over the said passage is created under the document in favour of Satyanarayana, the plaintiff, who is the beneficiary under the document. He was only permitted to reach his lands through the said passage, which passage the executant of the document has already provided for his lands. Therefore, to my mind the document in question created no right in immovable property; and, only irrevocable permission was accorded under it to use the existing passage by granting licence so to say. Viewed thus, this court finds that the document in question does not require registration.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE  M. SEETHARAMA MURTI        

Civil Revision Petition no.261 of 2012

17-02-2016

Dwara Satyanarayana. Petitioner


Malladi Bhanumathi and 6 others . Respondents  

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.S.N. Prasad

Counsel for Respondents 1, 2 &7 :  Sri T.S. Anand
Counsel for respondents 3 to 6 : none

<Gist :

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

1.AIR 1929 Madras 79


THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI          


Civil Revision Petition No.261 of 2012

ORDER:

        This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India
by the petitioner/plaintiff is directed against the orders dated 10.11.2011 of
the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur wherein and whereby the
learned Principal Junior Civil Judge refused to admit in evidence the document
dated 15.05.1996 tendered in evidence during the further examination in chief
of PW1 (the plaintiff) on the ground that the said document, which is
unregistered, cannot be admitted in evidence…

A divorced Muslim woman is entitled for maintenance during the iddat period in view of Section 3 (i) (a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY        

CRL.P.No.6645 OF 2010  

28-03-2016

S.Rehana Sulthana @ Rehana Begum ...Petitioner  

B.Mohammad Ghouse & Another...Respondent    

Counsel for Petitioner  : Sri K.V.Subba Reddy

Counsel for the respondent: Sri M. Bhaskar

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases referred
1 2003 (1) ALT (Cri.) 369
2 (2002) 7 SCC 518
3 (2007) 6 SCC 555
4 (2008) 13 SCC 689
5 (2011) 12 SCC 347

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY        

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6645 OF 2010    

ORDER:
1       This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
to quash the order dated 08.06.2009 passed in Crl.R.P.No.110 of
2007 by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapur,
wherein and whereby the order dated 22.10.2007 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapur in M.C.No.38 of
2006 was confirmed.
2       The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
Courts below misconstrued the scope of Sub-Section 4 …

Right of lateral support to the property is not a right of easement but is an incidence of proprietary title and hence a natural right protected under section 7 of the Easements Act. No matter respondent has described that right as an easement by prescription but, what is meant is the right to get lateral support for plaint A schedule item No.1 which is situated at a higher level from the property of appellants. Claim made by the respondent is to enforce his natural right. - land owner is entitled to get lateral support for his land from the adjoining land and that when that right is infringed remedy of the person threatened with injury is to seek restoration of lateral support.-right for lateral support stands as natural justice and is essential to the protection and enjoyment of the property in the soil. That right of the respondent has to be protected.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 201 of 2010() 1. SALI MATHEW, ... Petitioner 2. K.M.MATHEW, Vs 1. C.K.KURIAN, ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :18/03/2010 O R D E R THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.201 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 18th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The second appeal arises from judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Kottayam in A.S.No.102 of 2005 confirming judgment and decree of learned Munsiff, Vaikom in O.S.No.434 of 2000. That was a suit filed by the respondent seeking lateral support for his prope…

DNA test = the husbands plea that he had no access to the wife when the child was begotten stands proved by the DNA test report as, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is possible to opine that the proof based on DNA test would be sufficient to dislodge the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. -The trial Court shall accordingly direct the petitioner, the respondent and the child of the respondent by name Shiva Kumar to undergo DNA test by referring them to Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. However, it is made clear that in case the respondent/wife accepts the directions that the trial court may issue in pursuance of the orders of this court, the DNA report will determine the conclusiveness of the veracity of the accusation levelled by the petitioner against her; but, in case she declines to comply with the directions, the allegations of the husband would be determined by the court below by drawing a presumption of the nature contemplated under section 114 of the Evidence Act especially in terms of illustration (h) thereof.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE  M. SEETHARAMA MURTI          
Civil Revision Petition no.5290 of 2011
11-02-2016 
Govindula Sathaiah. Petitioner
Govindula Manjula .Respondent   
Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri P.V. Narayana Rao
Counsel for Respondent: Sri P. Laxma Reddy  
<Gist :
>Head Note: 
? Cases referred:
1.AIR 1993 SC 2295   2.AIR 2015 SC 418   3.2015(4) ALT 157 
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI           

Civil Revision Petition No.5290 of 2011
ORDER:  
        The unsuccessful petitioner/husband filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders dated 21.09.2011 of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Jagtial passed in IA.No.378 of 2011 in OP.No.18   of 2008 filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act requesting to refer the petitioner, the respondent/his wife and her son Shiva Kumar for DNA test at Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Habsiguda, Hyderabad for determination of parentage of the said male c…

the version that when the second respondent asked the petitioner to repay the misappropriated amount, an altercation took place between both of them and in the course of the said altercation, the petitioner abused the second respondent in his caste name seems to be inherently improbable and ex facie false. It would clearly appear that the said allegation was invented by the second respondent for the purpose of fixing the petitioner in a false charge under the Act.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO      

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12725 OF 2010    

24-03-2014

Punugoti Naga Kiran Kumar..Petitioner/Accused  

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad and another..Respondents.  

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana

Counsel for Respondents: Addl. Public Prosecutor, High
                          Court of A.P., Hyderabad

<Gist :

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO        

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12725_2010    


ORDER:

        Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
representing the State.  Though served with notice, the
second respondent did not appear in person or through
counsel.

2.      This Criminal petition is filed to quash the charge
sheet in S.C.No.29 of 2010 on the file of the Special
Judge for trial of Cases under S.C. and S.T (POA) Act,
Prakasam District at Ongole, filed against the petit…