Posts

Showing posts from March, 2017

The office took the objection that since the impugned order was passed by the Senior Civil Judge, how the CMA is maintainable before the High Court. = Senior Civil Judges also have been entertaining the succession O.Ps as District delegates.= the Government in concurrence with the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 388(1) of Indian Succession Act, 1925, have issued notification conferring powers on all the Senior Civil Judges to entertain original petitions filed under Indian Succession Act, 1925 and to exercise the functions of District Judge under Part-X of the said Act within their respective jurisdictions.- 388. Investiture of inferior courts with jurisdiction of District Court for purposes of this Act: (1) The State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, invest any Court inferior in grade to a District Judge with power to exercise the functions of a District Judge under this Part. (2) Any inferior Court so invested shall, within the local limits of its jurisdiction, have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in the exercise of all the powers conferred by this Part upon the District Judge, and the provisions of this Part relating to the District Judge shall apply to such an inferior Court as if it were a District Judge: Provided that an appeal from any such order of an inferior Court as is mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 384 shall lie to the District Judge, and not to the High Court, and that the District Judge may, if he thinks fit, by his order on the appeal, make any such declaration and direction as that sub-section authorises the High Court to make by its order on an appeal from an order of a District Judge.; Section 384 of Indian Succession Act = against the order of a District Judge granting, refusing or revoking a certificate under Part-X of Indian Succession Act, an appeal shall lie to the High Court. However, Section 384 is subject to the other provisions of Part-X which means the said section is subject to Section 388 as per which, against the order passed by an inferior Court, an appeal shall lie before the District Judge and not before the High Court.- For the above reasons, the office objection is found valid and hence sustained. The office is directed to return the CMA to the appellant for filing before an appropriate Court.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT AND  THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO                  

CMASR No.45531 of 2016  

15-02-2017

Pasumarthi Srinivas...Appellant

Responded: NIL  ..Respondent        

Counsel for Appellant: Sri Rama Murty PVSA

Counsel for Respondent   :

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT        
AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO          
C.M.A. (SR) No.45531 of 2016
ORDER: (Per Honble Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao)
        Perused the office objections and heard learned counsel
for appellant.
2)      This C.M.A is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order
dated 25.07.2016 in S.O.P (SR) No.2632 of 2016 passed by the
Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram whereby the learned
Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/appellant
for granting succession certificate. Hence, the CMA.
3)      The office took the objection that since the impugned
order was passed by the Senior Civil Judge…

Whether the Courts below were justified in considering the Ex.A1/Ex.B-2 deed dated 19-03-2005 executed by S. Narapa Reddy as an irrevocable gift settlement deed in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs though the recitals in the said deed provided for retaining of life interest in the property in S. Narapa Reddy himself and after his demise to his wife? 2. Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the revocation deeds executed by S. Narapa Reddy were void and not binding upon the respondent Nos.1 & 2 even in the absence of any prayer sought for by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in this regard? 3. Whether both the Courts were justified granting the reliefs sought by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in the absence of any prayer in suit against the revocation deeds executed by the father of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and also the substantial registered sale deed dated 04-04-2012 in favour of the appellant Nos.2 & 3? 4. Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the appellant Nos.2 & 3 are not bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration merely because the counsel for the appellant No.1 had received notice about the filing of the suit on 02-04-2012 and the sale deeds in favour of the appellant Nos.2 & 3 were executed on 04-04-2012?

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT        

S.A No.1054 of 2016

02-01-2017

Smt. Syamala Raja Kumari and others. .Appellants.

Alla Seetharavamma and another. .... Respondents.

Counsel for the petitioner :  Kowturu Pavan Kumar.                    

Counsel  for the Respondent: Sreenivasa Rao Velivela                  


<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1.AIR 2014 SC 2906
2.2013 (5) ALD 711

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT        

SECOND APPEAL No.1054 of 2016    

Date:02.01.2017


THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT        

SECOND APPEAL No.1054 of 2016    

JUDGMENT:  
        Vide the present second appeal, the appellants have assailed
the Judgment & Decree dated 19-10-2016 passed in
A.S.No.75/2016  on the file of I Additional District Judge, Guntur
whereby confirmed the Judgment & Decree dated 12-11-2015  
passed in O.S.No.50/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,
Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

2.      The appellants have filed the presen…

Election - Disqualification of candidates: (3) A person having more than two children shall be disqualified for election or for continuing as member: Provided that the birth within one year from the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 hereinafter in this section referred to as the date of such commencement, of an additional child shall not be taken into consideration for the purposes of this section: Provided further that a person having more than two children (excluding the child if any born within one year from the date of such commencement) shall not be disqualified under this section for so long as the number of children he had on the date of such commencement does not increase: Provided also that the Government may direct that the disqualification in this section shall not apply in respect of a person for reasons to be recorded in writing.-; Writ Jurisdiction - limited - the settled legal position is that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writ of certiorari is supervisory in nature, that while exercising this jurisdiction the Court is not entitled to act as an appellate court, and that the findings of fact arrived at by inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings.-except the Tribunal/Court had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding.;

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI      

W.P.No.42819 of 2016

21-02-2017

Katla Prashanthi w/o. Shanker @ Shankaiah..Petitioner

Dudapaka Shoba, w/o Shanker and 9 others....Respondents  

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri O.Manoher Reddy

Counsel for the 1st Respondent: Sri S.Satyam Reddy


<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? Cases referred

1 2013 (6) ALD 592
2 2005 (5) ALD 742
3 2005 (2) ALD 174 (DB)
4 2004 (5) ALD 525
5 2017 (1)ALD 655 (DB)

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI      

W.P.No.42819 of 2016

O R D E R:
        In the present writ petition, challenge is to the order dated
01.12.2016 passed by the Election Tribunal (Junior civil Judge), Mulug and
the order of the District Collector, Warangal District passed vide proceedings
No.111/2016/A, dated 09.12.2016.
2.      The facts and circumstances, leading to the filing of the present writ
petition are as under:
2.1.    In the election held on 23.07.2013, petitioner herein got
elected as Sarpanch of Ghanpur (Mulug) Gram Panchayat, Wara…

copies obtained under the Right to Information Act certified by the Authorised Information Officer cannot be called as public documents or primary evidence. Explanation-2 of Section 62 makes the position clear. However, if a document is obtained under the Right to Information Act from a competent Authority, it can be asked to be taken as a certified copy if the original satisfies the definition of public document and no formal proof of the same is required. But, in the case of other private documents, the copies of which are obtained under the Right to Information Act, the provisions of Evidence Act with regard to secondary evidence have to be satisfied.

2015 Dec. http://judis.nic.in/Judis_Andhra/list_new2.asp?FileName=13179

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO            

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3031 of 2015 and batch  

11-12-2015

Datti KameswariPetitioner

Singam Rao Sarath Chandra and another Respondent    

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Prakash Buddarapu

Counsel for the Respondent:  M/s. Bhaskari Advocates

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred

1)(2010 (5) ALD 339)

2)AIR 2006 Madhya Pradesh 107  

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO          

Civil Revision Petition Nos.3031 and 3048 of 2015

Date: 11-12-2015

C.R.P.No.3031 of 2015


COMMON ORDER:    

        These two Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by
this common order as they both involve a decision on the nature of
the document obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in
civil proceedings.

C.R.P.No.3031 of 2015:
        The revision petitioner is the 5th respondent in E.P.No.1 of
2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judges Court, Parvath…