AP LAW REPORT

2020 [3] – under construction

 

AP LAW REPORT

2020 [3]

M.Murali Mohan

Advocatemmmohan

1-5-12 Brahmin Street

Atmakur, Kurnool dist. AP- 518422

Goals

  1. Providing legal information at lowest price for legal fraternity and public. 

Specifications

Covers as many as LATEST CASE LAW /judgments of  our AP High Court for each month.

Mode of Citation

  1. 2020 [3] APHC case number -parties names
  2. COST OF THE VOLUME

Rs.100/- INR.

                                  DISCLAIMER

All the contents of this Site are only for general information or use. All the precautions have been taken while constructing Head notes of each judgment with due care and caution conveying the gist of the judgment.  Hereby excludes any warranty, express or implied, as to the quality, accuracy, timeliness, completeness, performance, fitness for a particular purpose of the Site or any of its contents, including (but not limited) to any financial tools contained within the Site.  Will not be liable for any damages(including, without limitation, damages for loss of business projects, or loss of profits) arising in contract, tort or otherwise from the use of or inability to use the Site, or any of its contents, or from any action taken (or refrained from being taken) as a result of using the Site or any such contents. , Makes no warranty that the contents of the Site are free from infection by viruses or anything else which has contaminating or destructive properties.

Contacts

I. Copies available at

      yourcaselaw@gmail.com ; advocatemmmohan@gmail.com 

II. Mode of Payment

                  GOOGLE PAY

                                   INDEX

  1. Once the title is proved in the absence of proof of adverse possession – earlier injunction suit against the GPA is only a personal decree and not binding on the plaintiffs as doctrine of lis pendency not applies and as a trespasser the defendants are liable to be evicted.
  1. Whether the claim of the appellants vis-a-vis the proceedings under Act 1 of 1973 with reference to excess holding declared by the 1st respondent out of the plaint schedule lands viz., items 2,3,5 and 15 to 18 be considered for partition and if a suit of this nature is barred in terms of Section 26 of A.P. Act 1 of 1973. ? 

PARTITION SUIT FOR EXCESS CEILING LANDS  CLAIMING  THE ORDERS  NOT VALID AND NOT BINDING ON THEM-NOT MAINTAINABLE 

  1. Once the defendants proved that they have not received the amount under the cheque towards consideration under suit documents as alleged by the plaintiff and cheque  was given  to third person- it is the duty of the plaintiff to produce relevant cheque as he claimed which is correct – failure of him resulted in dismissal of the suit as the defendants took stand that they are signed only blank document at the pressure of plaintiff relative.
  1. When once a live wire is passing across a building, as per their rules, it is the duty of the Board to take all safety measures and insulate the wires- else it amounts to gross negligence when electrocution occurred and the Electricity board is liable for damages.
  1. Oral lease is a lease at will – when it was duly terminated under Sec.106 TP Act by giving 15 days notice – the lessee is a trespasser not a lessee and as such liable to deliver vacant possession of the shop- no defence is maintainable.
  1. When there is a serious question – whether the 1 st respondent is the illegitimate son of Sri Rambabu nor there is any material to hold that either Sri Sundar Rao or Rambabu is his biological father ?- The appellant court can not add 1 st respondent also in the succession certificate issued by trial court – since the jurisdiction is limited and this issue was left open for settlement in civil court .- confirming succession certificate only to petitioners.
  1. whether there is sufficient cause shown by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 1263 days in preferring the second Appeal? 
  1. Whether the garnishee [PAWNEE]has a right over the scheduled properties as per the provision of Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1982. – sought for attachment before judgement in a money suit ?
  1. .Or.39, rule 1 and 2 CPC – not to alienate suit schedule properties – Suit for declaration and cancellation of  reg.partition deed –  when the records  prima facie disprove the claim of plaintiffs that they have no knowledge about the several transactions after partition deed – having endorsed their signatures as parties to the partition deed  12 years back – no interim injunction be granted.
  2. Whether the exhibitors have exhibited high budget/dubbing films in the guise of low budget films and thereby evaded entertainment tax to the Government, violating Section 4(1-A) of Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Act and conditions of G.O.Ms.No.604 (Revenue (CT-IV) Department, dated 22.4.2008. ?
  1. When admittedly the minors are students – and when the sale of the properties are  very much essential for the education of two children and in the absence of any objections from third parties- it can be sold and the same be deposited in the court for taking interest for their education till attain majority from the FDs
  1. Whether the arbitrator appointed through court [unchallenged ] can go beyond the terms of the agreement and grant award on the escalation of prices as it found that the delay was caused due to the government – is it amounts to go beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitrator ? No..
  1. When No person from the public came forward with objections and when- The maternal grandfather and paternal aunt of the minor appeared before the Court below and stated that they have no objection to allow the impugned petition – The CMA was allowed on conditions in the interest of education of the minor child.
  1. Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC – No interim injunction from filing complaints against the petitioner as It is not for the Court to go into each complaint and decide whether the complaint is having allegations of any antitrust activities. It is beyond the scope of the petition and The relief claimed in the petition cannot be granted as it is touching the merits of the suit. 
  1. Reopen – Receive the document  a sale deed executed by defendant infavour of his daughter – Recall the pw1 for the purpose of marking – Trail court dismissed on the only ground that it was filed at belated stage – when the petitioner said that he has recently obtained the certified copy of the documents and therefore, he wants to file those documents to prove the case of the petitioners as the defendants suppressed the same and in the said sale deed it is clearly mentioned that on the eastern side boundary, the land of Venugopal is situated, who is no other than the husband of the 2nd petitioner herein – an opportunity should be given to the plaintiff – allowed the revision and set aside the dismissal order of trial court.
  1. Or.1 rule 10 CPC -Whether the 1st respondent is a proper and necessary party to the suit whose presence affords to effectively adjudicate the dispute among the parties in proper perspective? – No – in a bare injunction suit – a third party is not a necessary party on the mere plea of  apprehension about the misuse of injunction decree in future against him ,if he has got any grievance about the documents of the plaintiff- he ought to have filed a separate suit instead of impleading.
  1. EP – slae by court auction – slae set side petition under Or.21, rule 90 CPC – non fixing of upset price / reserve price is fatal to the sale and the sale is liable to be set aside and further lack of competitive bidding among the bidders and auction purchaser is the father in law of dhr so sale is liable to be set aside.
  1. Order-41 Rule-5 and Section 151 CPC seeking stay of operation of decree and Judgment – whether the revision petitioners /defendants are entitled for stay of operation of the Judgment and Decree ? = the defendants except showing a tomb and barren land  in photos , showed no record of their possession and enjoyment for staying the lower court decree and as such no stay.
  1. Rule 23(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent And Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 – wife and children of Jdr can not challenge the execution of RCC order for eviction of her husband[including themselves] and it’s jurisdiction by filing a partition suit claiming rights through Jdr.

20.Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking leave of the Court to file rejoinder -unless the Court forms an opinion that the application for leave is filed for reasons, such as procrastinating the suit proceedings or to widen the scope of the suit or change the nature and character of the suit proceedings, the applications shall ordinarily be allowed. By permitting such subsequent pleadings, the Courts can avoid multiplicity of proceedings. That approach will also help the Court to comprehensively and effectually decide all the questions arising in the case with reference to the complete information furnished by the parties through their original as well as subsequent pleadings.