Sri A.Manikanta

Junior Civil Judge, Aleru

Alair, JCJ Court Complex · Yadadri Bhuvanagiri · Telangana

Sri A.Manikanta, Junior Civil Judge, Aleru, is posted at Alair, JCJ Court Complex, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, Telangana, India. 325 court orders on record since 2016. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, PRC cases.

325

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/91/2021

Venkatapuram Kalpana vs Chebrolu Venkata Sesha Sai Gowri Sankar

26 Aug 2021

OS No. 91 of 2021 JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT : ALAIR

PRESENT:- SRI. A. MANIKANTA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALAIR

(Dated, this the 26 th day of August, 2021).

O.S. No. 91 of 2021

Between:- Venkatapuram Kalpana W/o: Venkatapuram Badrinath, Aged about: 52 yrs., occ: House wife, R/o: H. No. 10-25, Prem Vijay Nagar colony, Behind Sai Baba Temple, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. …Plaintiff. AND

1. Chebrolu Venkata Sesha Sai Gowri Sankar, Aged about: 51 yrs., occ: Business, R/o: H. No. 40-430, Ground floor 1, Gopal Nagar, Near ZTC Vivekananda ITI Lane, Moula Ali, Secunderabad.

2. All concerned. … Defendants.

Claim:-This suit is filed to declare the Plaintiff as the Legal heir of the deceased Late Venkatapuram Venkatesh.

@ @ @

This suit is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri J. Rama Krishna, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the Defendant No.2 is Set Exparte, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This suit is filed to declare the Plaintiff as the Legal heir of the deceased Late

Venkatapuram Venkatesh S/o: Badrinath . Originally Venkatapuram Venkatesh who is the son of Plaintiff has purchased the plot bearing No. 3 in Sy. No.

185/EE/2 GP block No.1 admg: Ac. 113 sq yards situated at Gundalapalli village,

Yadagirigugutta Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District by virtue of Registered Sale

Deed bearing Doc.No. 14673/2018, Dt: 30.7.2018. The said Venkatapuram 2

OS No. 91 of 2021 JUDGMENT

Venkatesh expired on 18.4.2019 leaving behind the Plaintiff who is his mother as sole legal heir and successor. Further, he has unmarried, except the Plaintiff there are no legal heirs to succeed the property. The Plaintiff was intending to alienate the property to third parties and Defendant No.1 who initially agreed to purchase the property, but subsequently, raised objection and denied the legal character of the

Plaintiff that she is the only legal heir of deceased Venkatapuram Venkatesh .

Therefore the Plaintiff filed the present suit seeking declaration to declare her as legal heir of Venkatapuram Venkatesh .

2. Summons were issued to Defendant No.1 and he raised no objection, further, the Defendant No.2 who are all concerned summons were issued to both of them through paper publication in Nava Telangana Daily, none of them appeared, the case was posted for Plaintiff exparte evidence. The Plaintiff got examined as

Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A6.

3. Heard the counsel for Plaintiff perused the record.

4. Now the point for consideration is:

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration to declare her as legal heirs of Late Venkatapuram Venkatesh ?

ii) To what relief?

5.Point: The PW1 has reiterated the contents of plaint stating that, the deceased Late Venkatapuram Venkatesh has purchased the property from Boyini 3

OS No. 91 of 2021 JUDGMENT

Satyanarayana S/o: Yadagiri by virtue of Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.

14673/208, Dt: 30.7.2018. Thereafter Venkatapuram Venkatesh expired and there are no other person except Plaintiff to succeed the property. When the Plaintiff was intending to alienate the property in favour of third parties the Defendant No.1 initially denied the legal character of Plaintiff.

6. In this suit, the plaintiff seeking to declare their legal character that she is the legal heir of the deceased Late Venkatapuram Venkatesh . This relief squarely falls within the ambit of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act (for short the Act). In order to appreciate the claim of the plaintiff, it is necessary to notice the said provision, which reads:

Sec.34. Discretion of Court as to declaration of status of right.- Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may, in its discretion, make therein a declaration that he is so entitled and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:

Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. Explanation.- A trustee of property is a person interested to deny a title adverse to the title of someone who is not in existence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee.

7.From the above provision, the requisites for grant of declaratory relief can be summed up as under:

i) The plaintiff are at the time of suit, entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property. ii) The defendant has denied or is interested in denying the character or title of the plaintiff. iii) The declaration asked for is a declaration that the plaintiffs entitled to a legal character or to right to property.

iv) The plaintiff is not in a position to claim further relief than the bare 4

OS No. 91 of 2021 JUDGMENT

declaration of his title.

v) The Court at its discretion considers it proper to grant declaratory relief, having in view the circumstances of the case.

8.Thus, it is clear that to maintain a suit for relief of declaration of any legal character, or to any right as to any property of a person, there must be another person denying or interested to deny the title of such person to such character or right. In the instant case the Defendant No. 1 who intends to purchase the Suit Schedule property have denied the legal character of the plaintiff and refused to purchase the property. As such this suit is filed seeking declaration. The relief of declaration is a discretionary one. The same cannot be granted merely as it is asked unless the party seeking declaration satisfies the above requirements of Section 34 of the Act.

9.The Hon'ble High Court in a case of this nature in V.Hanya Naik v. M.Krishna

Reddy reported in 2009 (6) ALT 221 found fault with the trial Court even for numbering the suit. The Hon'ble High Court after noticing Section 34 of the Act, which is already extracted above, observed as under:

From a perusal of the proviso, it becomes clear that no Court shall grant the mere relief of declaration, if the plaintiff, being in a position to claim other relief; did not pray for it. Even a vague idea about this provision would have persuaded the trial Court, to refuse numbering of the suit. As pointed out at the threshold, the sky rocketing of prices of land has manifested its effect in various fields, including the approach of the Courts, in deviation of the settled norms.” The Hon'ble High Court also cautioned the civil Courts in numbering such suits as under:

It is hoped that the Civil Courts, particularly in the districts, where the value of the land has increased substantially, in the recent past, would evidence required amount of interest and attention before the suits filed in respect of the immovable properties are numbered, 5

OS No. 91 of 2021 JUDGMENT

lest, the innocent citizens become victims of the ingenious methods resorted to, by vested interests.”

10.This decision of the Hon'ble High Court squarely applies to the fact situation on hand. In the instant case also, the plaintiffs have sought for declaration to declare them as Legal heirs of Late Venkatapuram Venkatesh . The Plaintiff by filing the

C.C of Death Certificate have established the fact that said Venkatapuram Venkatesh have expired on 18.4.2019 under ExA1. Further the Plaintiffs have filed Certified copy Regd. Sale deed doc. No. 14673/2018 dated 30.7.2018 under ExA2 to establish the fact that the deceased during his life time have purchased the Suit schedule property. ExA3 is the death certificate of V. Badrinath and Ex.A4 are the Xerox copy of Aadhar card of Plaintiff , Ex.A5 is the CC of Encumbrance certificate,

Ex.A6 is the Market value certificate.

11.On careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence substantiate the fact that the Plaintiff being the legal heir of deceased Late Venkatapuram Venkatesh and he died on 18.4.2019. The documents also revealed the deceased has purchased the suit schedule property and he died leaving behind the Plaintiff.

After the death of deceased Plaintiff approached the Defendants for alienating the property and Defendant No.1 raised objection. The evidence of Plaintiff remained un-challenged.

12.This court has not received claims from anybody when the summons were issued to the Defendant No.2/All concerned, therefore it can be safely concluded 6

OS No. 91 of 2021 JUDGMENT

that the Plaintiff as the legal heir of Late Venkatapuram Venkatesh and she is entitled for the relief of declaration as to declare her as legal heir of Late

Venkatapuram Venkatesh.

13.In the result, the suit is decreed, declaring the Plaintiff as the Legal Heir of

Late Venkatapuram Venkatesh . No order as to costs.

….Typed to Dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 26 th day of August, 2021.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAIR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR THE PLAINTIFF. FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

PW1. Venkatapuram KalpanaNone

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

Ex.A1: is the Death certificate of Venkatapuram Venkatesh Ex.A2: is the CC of Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No. 14673/2018, Dt: 30.7.2018 Ex.A3: is the Death certificate of V. Badrinath Ex.A4; is Xerox copy of Aadhar card of Plaintiff which is compared with the original produced before this court. Ex.A5: is the CC of Encumbrance certificate Ex.A6: is the Market value certificate.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

NIL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAIR 7

OS No. 91 of 2021 JUDGMENT

OS/84/2020

SHEELAM BHARATHAMMA vs KOTHA RAM REDDY

17 Aug 2021

OS No. 84 of 2020JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT : ALAIR

PRESENT:- SRI. A. MANIKANTA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALAIR.

(Dated, this the 17 th day of August, 2021).

O.S. No. 84 of 2020

Between:-

1. Sheelam Bharathamma W/o: Narasimha Reddy, Aged about: 55 yrs., occ: House hold, R/o: Raghavapuram village of Alair Mandal, Dist: Yadadri-Bhongir.

2. Kakaram Prameela, W/o: Yadagiri Reddy, Aged about: 54 yrs., occ: House wife, R/o: Challur village of Rajapet Mandal, Dist: Yadadri- Bhongir.

3. Kotha Suvarna W/o: Krishna Reddy, Aged about: 48 yrs., occ: House hold, R/o: H. No. 4-31/8, R/o: Ramachandragudem village of Lingala Ghanapuram, Jangaon District.

4. Kancharla Thara W/o: Kondal Reddy, aged about: 47 yrs., occ: House hold, R/o: H. No. 87/16, Suraram colony, Quthubullapur, IDA, Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Vallapureddy Nirmala W/o: Gopal Reddy, Aged about: 43 yrs., occ: House hold, R/o: H. No. 2-20-3/3/17, Adarsha nagar, Near Sai Vikasa School, Uppal, Dist: Medchal-Malkajgiri.

…Plaintiffs. AND

1. Kotha Ram Reddy, S/o: K. Narsi Reddy, Aged about: 50 yrs., Occ:Agriculture

2. Kotha Venugopal Reddy, S/o: Ram Reddy, aged about; 25 yrs., occ: Student

3. Kotha Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o: Ram Reddy, Aged about; 23 yrs., occ: Student

All are R/o: Nemila village of Rajapet Mandal, Dist: Yadadri- Bhongir.

… Defendants 2

OS No. 84 of 2020JUDGMENT

Claim:-This suit is filed for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants No.1 to 3 from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property.

@ @ @

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Jukanti Ravinder, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Defendant No.1 to 3 are set-Exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

(i) The plaintiffs are the absolute owners, possessors and pattedars of the agricultural lands bearing Sy. No. 377, admg: Ac. 1.00 gts and

Sy. No. 434/A admg: Ac. 4.00 gts total admg: Ac. 5.00 gts situated at

Nemila village of Rajapet Mandal, Dist: Yadadri-Bhongir District, which is herein after referred as suit schedule property.

(ii) The Plaintiffs has acquired the property from their mother namely Kotha Amsamma, through a registered settlement deed vide document No. 29507/2019, Dt: 16.10.2019 and got mutated their names in the revenue records. Since then, the Plaintiff No.1 to 5 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of “Suit Schedule Property” and also implemented their names in revenue records.

(iii). The Defendants without any manner of right, title are trying to interfere into suit schedule property, more particularly on 25.5.2020 by way of damaging the boundary stone pillars The Plaintiffs have 3

OS No. 84 of 2020JUDGMENT

approached the police Rajapet, the police did not take any action, as such present suit is filed seeking “Perpetual Injunction”.

2. Summons were issued and Defendant No.1 to 3 and appeared through their counsel, but they failed to file written statement within stipulated time as such the Defendant No.1 to 3 are set exparte. The plaintiff got examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A21 .

3.Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

4. Now the point for consideration is:

(i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief?

5. POINT:

The Plaintiff No.1 got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to

A21. The Plaintiff No.1 who got examined as PW1 have reiterated the contents of Plaint stating that, she along with other Plaintiffs has acquired the suit schedule property through her mother by way of settlement deed which is marked under Ex.A1. The Plaintiff also filed

CC of pahanies for the year 2017 which marked under Ex.A2 and A3,

CC of Amendment proceedings which is marked under Ex.A4, CC of pahanie for the year 2013-2014 and CC of pahanie for the year 2019 which are marked under Ex.A5 and A6. CC of 1-B extract of Plaintiff

No.1 and 2 which are marked under Ex.A7 and A8. The Plaintiff No.1 4

OS No. 84 of 2020JUDGMENT

also filed CC of pahanie for the year 2019 of Plaintiff No. 2, 3,4 and 5 which are marked Ex.A9, A11, A13, A15 and also CC of 1-B extract of

Plaintiff No.3, 4, 5 which are marked under Ex.A10, A12, A14. The

Plaintiff No.1 also filed original pattedar pass book cum title deed of

Plaintiff No.1 to 5 and mother of Plaintiffs namely Amsamma which are marked under Ex.A16 to A21. The Plaintiff submitted that, the

Defendants are trying to interfere into the Suit Schedule Property.

6.On careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence establish fact that the Plaintiff is owner and possessor of suit schedule property as on date of filing the suit. The evidence of Plaintiff remains unchallenged till this day. Since, there is threat of dispossession in the hands of Defendants, the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Perpetual

Injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 to 3 from interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.

7.In the result, the Suit is decreed, with costs granting perpetual injunction in favour of the Plaintiff by restraining the Defendant No.1 to 3 from 5

OS No. 84 of 2020JUDGMENT

interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaintiff over suit schedule property.

….Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court in this the 17th day of

August, 2021.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAIR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS. FOR THE

DEFENDANTS.

PW1: Sheelam Bharathamma None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

Ex.A1: is the original settlement deed, vide document No.

29507/2019, Dt: 16.10.2019

Ex.A2: is the CC of pahanie for the year 2017 in respect of Sy. No.

377

Ex.A3: is the CC of pahanie for the year 2017 in respect of Sy. No. 434/A

Ex.A4: is the CC of amendment proceedings

Ex.A5: is the CC of pahanie for the year 2013-2014

Ex.A6: is the Cc of pahanie for the eyar 2019 standing in the name of Plaintiff No.1

Ex.A7: is the CC of 1-B extract of Plaintiff No.1

Ex.A8: is the CC of 1-B extract of Plaintiff No.2 6

OS No. 84 of 2020JUDGMENT

Ex.A9: is the CC of pahanie for the year 2019 of Plaintiff No.2

Ex.A10: is the CC of 1-B extract of Plaintiff No.3

Ex.A11: is the CC of pahanie for the year 2019 of Plaintiff No.3

Ex.A12: is the CC of 1-B extract of Plaintiff No.4

Ex.A13: is the CC of pahanie for the year 2019 of Plaintiff No.4

Ex.A14: is the CC of 1-B extract of Plaintiff No.5

Ex.A15: is the CC of pahanie for the year 2019 of Plaintiff No.5

Ex.A 16: is the original pattedar pass book cum title deed of Plaintiff No.1

Ex.A17 : is the original pattedar pass book cum title deed of Plaintiff No.2

Ex.A18 : is the original pattedar pass book cum title deed of Plaintiff No.3

Ex.A19 : is the original pattedar pass book cum title deed of Plaintiff No.4

Ex.A20 : is the original pattedar pass book cum title deed of Plaintiff No.5

Ex.A21 : is the original pattedar pass book cum title deed of mother of Plaintiff s namely Amshamma.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

NIL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAIR.

OS/134/2019

DUDALA RAMESH vs GOWRI RAMCHANDRAIAH

07 Sep 2021

OS No. 134 of 2019Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT : ALAIR

PRESENT:- SRI. A. MANIKANTA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALAIR.

(Dated, this the 7 th day of September, 2021).

O.S. No. 134 of 2019

Between:-

1. Dudala Ramesh, S/o: Veeraiah, age: 55 yrs., Occ:Agriculture, R/o: Kolanpaka village, Alair Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

2. Dudala Laxminarayana, S/o: Veeraiah, Age: 58 yrs., Occ:Agriculture, R/o: Sharajipet village, Alair Mandal, Yadadri- Bhongir District.

…Plaintiff. AND

1. Gowri Ramchandraiah, S/o: Ramaiah, Age: 62 yrs.,

2. Puttala Yadagiri S/o: Markaiah, Age: 64 yrs.,

Both are Occ:Agriculture, R/o: Sharajipet village, Alair Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

… Defendants

Claim:-This suit is filed by the Plaintiff No.1 and 2 for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property.

@ @ @

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Jukanti. Ravinder, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Defendants are Set-Exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:- 2

OS No. 134 of 2019Judgment

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner, possessor of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 441/Luu, admg: 0.18 ¼ gts, and Sy.

No. 441/LUU2 admg: Ac. 0.18 gts total admg: Ac. 0.36 ¼ gts situated at Sharajipet village of Alair Mandal of Yadadri-Bhongir District which is herein after referred as “Suit Schedule ‘A’ Property”. The plaintiff

No.2 is the absolute owner, possessor of agricultural land bearing Sy.

No. 441/Vuu/3, admg: 0.38 ¼ gts situated at Sharajipet village of Alair

Mandal of Yadadri-Bhongir District which is herein after referred as “Suit Schedule ‘B’ Property”.

(ii) The Plaintiff No.1 and 2 are own brothers, acquired the property from their ancestors and they are cultivating the land jointly.

Plaintiff No.1 and 2 has also obtained crop loan from A.P Grameena

Vikas Bank Ltd, Alair Branch and Primary Agricultural Co-operative

Society (PACS) by depositing the title deeds.

(iii). On the other hand, the Defendants without any manner of right, title are trying to interfere into peaceful possession and enjoyment of “suit schedule ‘A and B’ property”, more particularly on 29.8.2019 and 8.9.2019. The Plaintiffs with the help of well wishers has restrained the illegal activities, but the Defendants did not heed to the terms and are trying to interfere into the property at any cost. Since 3

OS No. 134 of 2019Judgment

there is apprehension the Defendants may dispossess them, this present suit is filed seeking “Perpetual Injunction”.

2. Summons were served to Defendant No.1 and 2 and appeared through their counsel, but Defendant No.1 and 2 failed to file written statement within stipulated time, as such they were set-exparte, and the case is posted for Plaintiff exparte evidence and the Plaintiff was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7.

3.Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

4. Now the point for consideration is:

(i) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief?

5. POINT:

The Plaintiff No.1 who got examined as PW1 has reiterated the contents of Plaintiff stating that he along with Plaintiff No.1 and 2 has acquire the suit schedule “A and B” properties from their ancestors jointly cultivating the same. Further he stated that, he has deposited the title deeds before the concerned bank for obtaining crop loan.

The Defendants on the other hand, who are highly influential are trying to interfere into the suit schedule property, as such this present suit is filed seeking “Perpetual Injunction”. The Plaintiff got marked

Ex.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is the letter issued by PACS, Alair stating that the original pattedar pass book cum title deed is deposited with them 4

OS No. 134 of 2019Judgment

which belongs to Plaintiff No.2. Further, he also filed the endorsement issued by Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank marked under Ex.A2.

6.The Plaintiff also filed CC of pahanie for the year 2017, CC of 1-B extract, dt: 30.7.2019 marked under Ex.A3 to A7. On careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence the land in Sy. No. 441/Luu to an extent of Ac. 0.18 ¼ gts and Sy. No. 441/Luu/2 to an extent of Ac.1.

18 gts is standing in the name of Plaintiff No.1 and the same is supported by 1-B extract which discloses that Plaintiff No.1 as pattedar to an extent of Ac. 0.36 ¼ gts which is the suit schedule “A” property. Further, the Plaintiff No.2 is absolute owner of land in

Sy. No. 441/Vuu/3 to an extent of Ac. 0.38 ¼ gts and the same is supported by 1-B extract. The evidence of the Plaintiff remained unchallenged till this day and the Defendant did not choose to file to set-aside the exparte order documents, prima facie case established the fact that, the Plaintiff No.1 and 2 are owner and possessors of suit schedule “A and B” properties as on the date of filing this suit therefore they are entitled for “Perpetual Injunction”.

7.In the result, the Suit is decreed, with costs granting perpetual injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs by restraining the Defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaintiff over “Suit Schedule ‘A and B’ properties.

OS No. 134 of 2019Judgment

….Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court in this the 7th day of

September, 2021.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAIR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS. FOR THE

DEFENDANTS.

PW1: D. Ramesh None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

Ex.A1: is the letter issued by PACS, Alair Ex.A2: is the attested copy of pattedar pass book issued by APGVB Bank, Alair Ex.A3: is the CC of pahanie for the year 2017 in respect of Sy. No. 441/LUU/2. Ex.A4; is the CC of pahanie for the year 2017 in respect of Sy. No. 441/LUU. Ex.A5: is the CC of 1-B extract of Dudala Ramesh Ex.A6: is the CC of pahanie for the year 2017 in respect of Sy. No. 441/U/3 Ex.A7: is the CC of 1-B extract of Dudala Laxminarayana

FOR THE DEFENDANT.

NIL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAIR.

OS/125/2018

Nuvvula Ramesh vs Vanteru Prabhakar Reddy

26 Aug 2021

OS No. 125 of 2018 JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ALAIR.

(Dated this the 26 th day of August, 2021)

PRESENT:- Sri A. Manikanta

Junior Civil Judge, Alair.

O.S.No.125 OF 2018

Between:-

Nuvvula Ramesh, S/o: Sathaiah, Aged: 58 yrs., occ: Business, R/o: H. No. 8-28, Gandhi Nagar, Yadagirigutta village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

…Plaintif

And

1. Vanteru Prabhakar Reddy, S/o: Laxminarsimha Reddy, Aged: 48 yrs., occ: Business,

2. Vanteru Ramadevi, W/o: Prabhakar Reddy, aged about: 45 yrs., occ: Business, Both are R/o: H. No. 3-9/3, Main road, Sriram Nagar, Yadagirigutta village and Mandal, yadadri- Bhongir District.

..Defendants

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Swamy, Advocate for the plaintif and Defendants set exparte and upon perusing material papers on record, hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

J U DGEMENT

1. This is a suit filed seeking recovery money of Rs.

2,73,315/- basing on promissory note.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that, the plaintif and defendant No.1 are well acquainted with each other, out of such acquaintance the defendant No.1 borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the Plaintif on 5.1.2017. Accordingly the

Defendant No.1 have executed, promissory note in favour of

Plaintif and agreed to repay the same @ Rs. 24% P.A. on order of demand, by the Plaintif .

3.Further, the Defendant No.2 who is the wife of the

Defendant No.1 stood as one of the surety and signed as one of surety in the promissory note. The Plaintif has approached

Defendant No.1 but the Defendant No.1 did not pay the principal amount along with interest and the Plaintif requested

Defendant No.2 to repay the amount since she stood as one of the surety, but she did not respond.

4.The Defendant No.1 also issued a cheque bearing No.

737529, Dt: 21.5.2018 and drawn on APGVB Bank, Yadagirigutta for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Plaintif presented the said cheque in Karur Vysya bank, Yadagirigutta but the same was returned on 22.5.2018 on the ground of account closed. The

Plaintif has filed criminal case against Defendant No.1 and same is pending. The Plaintif has filed suit against the

Defendant No.1 being the principal of borrower and Defendant

No.2 being the surety holder. Therefore, the Defendant No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for repayment of amount.

Hence, the Plaintif has filed the present suit seeking recovery of amount of Rs. 2,73,315/-. Along with future interest.

5. Summons were issued to Defendant No.1 and 2 but the same returned as not residing in the village, as such, summons were issued by way of paper publication in Nava

Telangana Daily and accordingly, the Defendant No.1 and 2 failed to appear before the 3 court, as such they were set exparte and the case was posted for Plaintif exparte evidence.

6.The plaintif got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex. A1 and A2.

7.Now the point for consideration is

1) Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of money as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

8.Heard counsel for the plaintif.

9.Issue No.1 and 2:-

The plaintif submitted that, the Defendant No.1 due to the acquaintance has borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Plaintif for his family necessities. The Defendant No.2 who is the wife and stood as one of the surety holder. Thereafter, he has executed promissory note on 5.1.2017 and agreed to repay the amount @ 24% P.A. The Defendant No.1 agreed to pay the said amount on the demand of Plaintif. The Plaintif demanded

Defendant No.1 to repay the amount but he did not come forward to pay principal amount nor the interest. Further, the

Plaintif also requested the Defendant No.2 to repay the amount.

But, both Defendant No.1, 2 have failed to repay the amount.

Further, the Defendant No.1 have issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- but when the same was presented the 4 cheque was dishonoured with endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.

The Plaintif have filed the Documents ie., promissory note which is marked as Ex.A1 disclosed that Defendant No.1 took an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Plaintif and the Defendant

No.2 stood as one of the surety holder. The document shows there is passing of consideration as per Sec. 118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. Further, Ex.A2 discloses that the house property is standing in the name of Defendant. The evidence of Plaintif is unchallenged and unrebuted till this day.

Therefore it can be safely concluded as to execution of promissory note which is binding on the Defendant No.1, 2. The

Defendant No.1 and 2 failed to repay the amount, Therefore, the Plaintif is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs. 2,73,315/- along with interest @ 24% is not excessive during pendente lite interest.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendants and they are jointly and severally liable to pay for an amount of Rs.2,73,315/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization of the principal amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

…Dictated to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of August, 2021.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAIR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF : P.W.1 N. Ramesh 5

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: -Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF : Ex.A1 is the original promissory note Dt: 5.1.2017. Ex.A2: is the owner ship certificate in respect of H. No. 3-9/3.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT : --Nil--

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAIR.

OS/121/2020

BATHINI ANAND vs BATHINI VENKATAIAH

19 Aug 2021

OS No. 121 of 2020Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT : ALAIR

PRESENT:- SRI. A. MANIKANTA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALAIR.

(Dated, this the 19 th day of August, 2021).

O.S. No. 121 of 2020

Between:- Bathini Anand S/o: Rajamallaiah, Aged about: 46 yrs., Occ:Agriculture R/o: Datharpally village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

…Plaintiff. AND

1. Bathini Venkataiah S/o: Rajamallaiah, Aged about: 49 yrs., Occ:Agriculture

2. Bathini Upender S/o: Venkataiah, Aged about: 30 yrs., Occ:Agriculture

Both are R/o: Datharpally village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri- Bhongir District.

… Defendant

Claim:-This suit is filed for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property.

@ @ @

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Babu Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Defendants are set- Exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:- 2

OS No. 121 of 2020Judgment

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff is the owner, possessor and pattedar of lands bearing Sy. No. 80/B/5 admg: Ac. 0-17 gts situated at Datharpally village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District which is herein after referred as “Suit Schedule Property”.

(ii) The Plaintiff acquired the Suit Schedule Property by way of purchase bearing document No. 7444/2017, Dt: 15.7.2017. The

Plaintiff got entered his name in revenue records and obtained pattedar pass book and title deed, ever since the date of acquisition the Plaintiff has been in continuous peaceful and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property.

(iii). The Defendants on the other hand, without any manner of right, title are trying to interfere into peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property, more particularly on 19.6.2020. The Plaintiff with the help of village elders restrained the illegal activities since there is apprehension the Defendant may dispossess him, this present suit is filed seeking “Perpetual Injunction”.

2. Summons were issued to Defendant No.1 and 2, but Defendant

No.1 and 2 did not choose to file written statement within stipulated time, as such they were set-exparte, and the case is posted for 3

OS No. 121 of 2020Judgment

Plaintiff exparte evidence and the Plaintiff was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4.

3.Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

4. Now the point for consideration is:

(i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief?

5. POINT:

The Plaintiff No.1 got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to

A4. The Plaintiff No.1 who got examined as PW1 have reiterated the contents of Plaint stating that, he has purchased the property by virtue of Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No. 7444/2017 marked under Ex.A1. Further, he got mutated land in his favour and obtained pattedar pass book and title deed marked under Ex.A2 ie., attested copy of pattedar pass book cum title deed. The Plaintiff in order to establish, his possession has filed pahanies in the year 1427 faslie and 2019 which categorically established the fact that, the Petitioner is pattedar and possessor of “Suit Schedule Property” as on the date of filing of the suit and evidence of Plaintiff remains unchallenged till this day. Since there is threat of dispossession in the hands

Defendants the Plaintiff is entitled for “Perpetual Injunction” as prayed for.

OS No. 121 of 2020Judgment

6.In the result, the Suit is decreed, with costs granting perpetual injunction in favour of the Plaintiff by restraining the Defendants from interfering 5

OS No. 121 of 2020Judgment

into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaintiff over suit schedule property.

….Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court in this the 19th day of

August, 2021.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAIR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS. FOR THE

DEFENDANTS.

PW1: D. Anand None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

Ex.A1: is the CC of Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No. 7444/2017,

Dt: 15.7.2017

Ex.A2: is the copy of ROR pattedar pass book cum title deed endorsed by PACS, Yadagirigutta Ex.A3: is the CC of pahanie for the year 1427 Ex.A4: is the CC of pahanie for the year 2019

FOR THE DEFENDANT.

NIL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALAIR.

Order Record 324 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/134/2019	DUDALA RAMESH vs GOWRI RAMCHANDRAIAH	07 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
OS/91/2021	Venkatapuram Kalpana vs Chebrolu Venkata Sesha Sai Gowri Sankar	26 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
OS/125/2018	Nuvvula Ramesh vs Vanteru Prabhakar Reddy	26 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
OS/121/2020	BATHINI ANAND vs BATHINI VENKATAIAH	19 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
OS/84/2020	SHEELAM BHARATHAMMA vs KOTHA RAM REDDY	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
OS/160/2019	Asireddy Malla Reddy vs Vskhaja parvez	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/448/2019	prohibition and excise Alair vs B. Srinivas	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/163/2014	SHO Yadagirigutta vs Vs1.Gujja Srinivas	16 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/98/2021	SHO Athamakur (V) vs Mogilipaka Srinu	12 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
OS/61/2020	BEJJANKI YELLA REDDY vs BAJJANKI NARSI REDDY	06 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
OS/95/2020	GUJJALA SUSHEELA vs INDLA CHANDRAKALA	04 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
OS/36/2020	Thummala Pochaiah vs Thummala Narsaiah	03 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
OS/149/2020	Dheeravath Ravi vs Dheeravath Earya	02 Aug 2021	Order	—
OS/44/2021	Penmetsa Janaki vs Malla Dilliswara Rao	30 Jul 2021	Judgement	—
OS/96/2020	GUDUDULA LINGASWAMY vs VANTIPENTI GOPAL REDDY	30 Jul 2021	Order	—
OS/170/2019	KOLA CHANDRAMOULI vs KOLA BIXAPATHI AND OTHERS	27 Jul 2021	Judgement	—
EP/13/2019	TEEPIREDDY SWAPNA vs MANTIPALLY LINGAIAH	26 Jul 2021	Order	—
OS/173/2015	Saragandla Ranuka vs Saragandla Kishtaiah	22 Jul 2021	Order	—
OS/223/2013	Lakadaboina Balaiah vs Lakadaboina Venkataiah 2. L.China Bal Narsaiah 3. L. Nadipi Bal Narasaiah and others.	15 Jul 2021	Order	—
OS/155/2015	Rapolu Lachamma vs Rapolu Bhagavanth Reddy	14 Jul 2021	Order	—
OS/139/2021	Kohinoor Infra Developers, Rep By Thigulla Srinivas Reddy vs Maraboina Balaraju	30 Jun 2021	Order	—
OS/9/2020	sambula srikanth vs Vsp.kadaiah	22 Jun 2021	Order	—
CC/207/2021	SHO Yadagirigutta vs Jajala Laxmi Narasimha Swamy @Ravitheja	16 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/374/2021	SHO Yadagirigutta vs Jajala Laxmi Narasimha Swamy	16 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
OS/126/2021	Sama Amul Reddy , Minor Respresented by his natural mother and guardian vs Sama Venkataramana Reddy	15 Jun 2021	Order	—
OS/101/2021	Shagarla Lavanya vs Ande Sathaiah	14 Jun 2021	Order	—
OS/102/2019	JANGILI@KONDAMADUGU RENUKA vs KONDAMADUGU BAGYAMMA	09 Jun 2021	Order	—
OS/107/2020	PULLE YELLAMMA vs BUGGA KOMARAIAH	19 Apr 2021	Order	—
OS/21/2020	Harijan Rajashekar vs A.Venkat reddy	15 Apr 2021	Order	—
OS/116/2019	Battamekala Veeraiah vs Battamekala Ramulu	15 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
OS/211/2020	Padakanti Srihari vs Yammagani Prabhakar	15 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
OS/212/2020	Padakanti Srinivas vs Guda Laxmaiah	15 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
OS/98/2016	Alakunta Narasimulu vs Alakuntala Pentaiah and others	12 Apr 2021	Order	—
CC/445/2020	SHO Athamakur (V) vs Thallapally Manikantam	12 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
CC/517/2014	SHO Alair vs Kola kumaraswamy	12 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
CC/518/2014	SHO Alair vs Kola Kumaraswamy	12 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
CC/519/2014	SHO Alair vs A1 KOLA KUMARASWAMY	12 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
OS/20/2021	Maraboina Ramaiah vs Ugge Mallaiah	10 Apr 2021	Order	—
OS/58/2018	Venna Srinivas Reddy vs Kaduri Srinivas	10 Apr 2021	Order	—
OS/66/2016	Gandamalla Salman vs Gyara Sampath Kumar and others	09 Apr 2021	Order	—
OS/67/2019	Panga Janamma vs Panga Yadagiri	09 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
OS/114/2019	Arapally Ramesh Babu vs The Tahasildar,alair mandal	26 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
OS/208/2020	Bandaru Bhasker vs Orsu Nagesh	26 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/140/2021	SHO Alair vs Talim Khan	26 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/214/2021	SHO Rajapet vs Vskummari pentaiah	26 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/840/2020	SHO Mutakondur vs T. khan	26 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1018/2020	SHO Rajapet vs Vstalim khan	26 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1019/2020	SHO Rajapet vs Talim Khan	26 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1020/2020	SHO Rajapet vs Talim Khan	26 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1063/2020	SHO Yadagirigutta vs Talim khan	26 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1064/2020	SHO Yadagirigutta vs Talim khan	26 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
PRC/4/2021	SHO Addagudur vs Mandula Lachamma	26 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
OS/37/2018	Bibinagar Laxmaiah vs Gazzam Venkatesham	24 Mar 2021	Order	—
OS/82/2020	KOKKULAKONDA PARVATHALU vs KOKKULAKONDA YADAIAH	22 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
OS/90/2018	Rachakonda Rambai @ Battu Shymala vs Butarjau Lalitha @ Sister Lalitha	22 Mar 2021	Order	—
OS/233/2020	Godala Srinivas vs Muppidi Padma	22 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
OS/136/2019	Ponnam Narsinga Rao vs Uppu Andamma	19 Mar 2021	Order	—
OS/81/2019	PERAPU BIXAPATHI vs PERAPU MARKAIAH	17 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
OS/23/2020	kokkalaonda ramaiah vs Vsnagilla ramesh	16 Mar 2021	Order	—
OS/135/2019	KOLA VIJAYA VANI vs KANUGU BALARAJU	16 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
OS/22/2015	Akunuru Laxmi Bai vs Vs1.Akunuru Narender 2. A.Somaiah	15 Mar 2021	Order	—
CC/114/2019	Excise.Alair vs Donkena Anjaiah	12 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/219/2020	prohibition and excise Alair vs Bingi RAVI	12 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/452/2019	prohibition and excise Alair vs K. Sathyanarayana	12 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/458/2019	prohibition and excise Alair vs A. Balaiah	12 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/461/2019	prohibition and excise Alair vs S. Veera swamy	12 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
OS/88/2016	Smt Guntuka Prameela vs V.Gal Reddy and others	10 Mar 2021	Order	—
OS/189/2020	Velpula Suresh vs Cheiluguri Narisi Reddy	04 Mar 2021	Order	—
OS/150/2019	Chiluguri Alivelu vs Vsjenne siddulu	02 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
PRC/1/2021	SHO Rajapet vs Rapaka Kanakaiah	01 Mar 2021	Order	—
OS/83/2017	Kontham Yadgiri vs Thedu Anjaiah	26 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
CC/24/2015	SHO Yadagirigutta vs A1 Jampala Srinivas	26 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
OS/195/2018	Gujja Sathaiah vs Vs1.Gujja Kistaiah 2. Gujja Pundareekam 3. Gujja Satya Keerthi 4. Gujja Shiva Shankar	25 Feb 2021	Order	—
OS/219/2020	M. Anjaiah vs E. Chandramohan	25 Feb 2021	Order	—
CC/45/2014	SHO Mutakondur vs A1 BEJJANKI SRIKANTH REDDY	24 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
OS/266/2020	Gajjala Sudharshan Reddy vs Gajjala Yella Reddy	23 Feb 2021	Order	—
OS/311/2013	Yerra balamallaiah vs Vsyerra Narsaiah	22 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
OS/19/2017	Gugulathu peekamma vs Gugulothu Amru and 9 others	17 Feb 2021	Order	—
OS/112/2019	SYED ABBAS vs PITTALA HEMALATHA	17 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
OS/31/2019	Seetha Nagesh 2.S.Srinivasulu vs Vs1.S.Rama Krishna 2. S.Ramesh Goud	16 Feb 2021	Order	—
CC/151/2015	SHO Yadagirigutta vs VskOKALAKONDA nAGARAJU	16 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
CC/194/2015	SHO Alair vs A1 Alakunta Nagaraju	16 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
EP/5/2020	Arutla Santosh Reddy vs Gottam Anji Reddy	12 Feb 2021	Order	—
CC/809/2014	SHO Yadagirigutta vs Bheemagani Ramulu and Others	12 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
OS/55/2017	Dornala Vasantha vs Kotha susheelamma and others	11 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
OS/160/2017	Kondam linga reddy vs Maripadaga Ramakanth Reddy and others	10 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
CC/270/2015	SHO Yadagirigutta vs Thumma Venu Babu	10 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
PRC/10/2020	SHO Yadagirigutta vs Mukkerla Satyanarayana	09 Feb 2021	Order	—
OS/332/2013	BEDARABOINA RAMULA vs A2 VEERUGANTI SAROJANAMMA	05 Feb 2021	Order	—
OS/335/2013	Bedaraboina Ramulu vs Veeruganti Gopal Kishan	05 Feb 2021	Order	—
OS/105/2015	Dharma Poolamma vs Burra Srinivas and others	04 Feb 2021	Order	—
OS/114/2018	Shyamala Narender Reddy vs Shyamala Prabhakar Reddy	04 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
PRC/24/2020	SHO Gundala vs Bongu Ashok	04 Feb 2021	Order	—
OS/133/2019	AEDUNURI SAMUEL vs KONTHAM BALAMANI	29 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
OS/152/2019	MARAGOUNI VAMSHIKRISHNA vs GUNDOJU KAVYASRI	29 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/100/2014	SHO Alair vs Nallamasu Madhu	29 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/348/2015	SHO Rajapet vs Bhupathy Balaraju	29 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
PRC/11/2020	SHO Yadagirigutta vs Gorakanti Lakshmi	29 Jan 2021	Order	—
PRC/31/2020	SHO Addagudur vs Macha Shiva	29 Jan 2021	Order	—
STC/194/2015	SHO Alair vs Benjarm ravi	29 Jan 2021	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 324 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Sep 2021		1
Aug 2021		12
Jul 2021		7
Jun 2021		7
Apr 2021		14
Mar 2021		29
Feb 2021		23
Jan 2021		23
Dec 2020		4
Nov 2020		4
Oct 2020		2
Sep 2020		3

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri A.Manikanta handled?

Sri A.Manikanta has handled 325 court orders since 2016 at Alair, JCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 5 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri A.Manikanta hear?

Based on available records, Sri A.Manikanta primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) at Alair, JCJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri A.Manikanta currently posted?

Sri A.Manikanta is posted as Junior Civil Judge, Aleru at Alair, JCJ Court Complex, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri A.Manikanta available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri A.Manikanta are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri A.Manikanta dispose cases?

Sri A.Manikanta disposes approximately 5 cases per month, based on 325 orders handled over their tenure at Alair, JCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri A.Manikanta serving?

Sri A.Manikanta has been serving at Alair, JCJ Court Complex since 2016.

Case Types

OS 62%

CC 29%

PRC 6%

EP 2%

STC 1%

Posting History

Oct 2016 — Oct 2021

Junior Civil Judge, Aleru · 325 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri R. Ajay Kumar

Junior Civil Judge, Aleru

110 orders

← View all judges at Alair, JCJ Court Complex