Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-29-2004
Reported in : AIR2005AP221; 2005(2)ALD821; 2005(2)ALT398
bilal nazki, j.1. three suits being o.s.no. 165 of 1980, o.s.no. 35 of 1981 and o.s.no. 105 of 1981 were decided together by prl. subordinate judge, ongole on 2-2-1996. three appeals being a.s.no. 1313 of 1996, a.s.no. 1179 of 1999 and 2850 of 1996 were filed against the common judgment and decree of the trial court and they were decided together by a learned single judge of this court on 13-12-1999. hence these l.p.as.2. suit properties originally belonged to one nadendla sheshaiah. plaintiff no. 1 and his daughter-plaintiff no. 2 filed o.s.no. 165 of 1980. plaintiff no. 1 claimed to be nadendla sheshaiah's maternal uncle's son. they sought a declaration of title in respect of plaint 'a' schedule property in favour of plaintiff no. 1 and plaint 'b' schedule property in favour of plaintiff no. 2. they also sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession in respect of the suit schedule properties basing on the will dated 20-2-1980 ex. a-1, allegedly executed by nadendla sheshaiah.3. o.s.no. 35 of 1981 was field by second wife of nadendla sheshaiah seeking partition of plaint a, b and c schedule properties into two equal shares and allotment of one such share to her.4. plaintiff in o.s.no. 105 of 1985 claimed to be the grand son of mother's sister of nadendla sheshaiah. he sought a decree for partition of plaint a schedule properties into two shares and allotment of one such share to him on the basis of a will deed dt. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-28-2004
Reported in : I(2005)ACC239; 2005ACJ1249; AIR2004AP442; 2004(4)ALT464
s.r.k. prasad, j.1. this l.p.a is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned single judge of this court in c.m.a.no.1214 of 1999 dismissing the appeal and confirming the awarding of compensation in o.a.a.no.121 of 1998 dated 22.1.1999 by the railway claims tribunal, secunderabad bench. 2. the appellant is the railways whereas the claimant is the respondent herein. they will be arrayed as in the claim petition. the claimants being the husband and daughter of the deceased venkatalakshmi have claimed compensation of a sum of rs.2,00,000/- alleging that his wife fell down from the train near gooty railway station while travelling in the second class railway compartment along with them from madras to guntakal, crushed in between the train and the platform resulting in her instantaneous death. the claimants have produced the first information report, inquest report, the original copy of the ticket coupon, the original copy of the excess fare ticket of the deceased and also the salary certificate of the deceased, who was employed as a nursing tutor. subsequently her daughter has given up her claim. the same is resisted by the railways on the ground that the death occurred on account of the negligence and careless act of the deceased who attempted to step down from the moving train before taking a stop on the platform at gooty station and as such no compensation was payable in view of proviso (b) to section 124 of the railways act, 1989. it was, however, admitted in the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-27-2004
Reported in : 2005CriLJ568
p.s. narayana, j.1. heard sri purushotham reddy, the learned counsel representing appellants-accused nos. 1 and 2 and the learned additional public prosecutor.2. the appellants-accused nos. 1 and 2 preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed in s.c. no. 746 of 1993, dated 15-11-1997, on the file of the assistant sessions judge, peddapally.3. sri purushotham reddy, learned counsel representing the appellants-accused nos. 1 and 2 would contend that from the evidence of p.w. 5 and p.w. 6, it is highly doubtful whether the accused are the persons who had participated in the alleged offence on the fateful day. the learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to the evidence of p.w. 13, the munsif magistrate, and would submit that even in the test identification parade, it is stated that one witness govardhanagiri venkatamma had identified a-1 but she was not examined, and the other witness gadem venkatamma p.w. 6, who was unable to identify, had been examined. even certain admissions made in the evidence of p.w. 5 would definitely throw some light on the aspect of identification, and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed as against the appellants-accused nos. 1 and 2 cannot be sustained.4. on the contrary, the learned additional public prosecutor would contend that at the best this may be of defective investigation and the mere fact that p.w. 5 was examined in court after sufficient lapse of time may not alter the situation in .....Tag this Judgment!