Smt A Neeraja

Senior Civil Judge

Sangareddy, PDJ Court Complex · Sangareddy · Telangana

Smt A Neeraja, Senior Civil Judge, is posted at Sangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Sangareddy, Telangana, India. 660 court orders on record since 2017. 8 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, SC, H cases.

660

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/192/2016

Baindly Pentaiah vs Baindla Buchaiah

31 Oct 2019

1 O.S.NO.192 OF 2016

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SANGAREDDY.

Present:-Smt. A.Neeraja,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

Thursday the 31st day of October, 2019.

O.S.No. 192 of 2016.

Between:-

Baindla Pentaiah S/o. Late Sailu @ Sayanna, Age 43 years, R/o.H.No.74 Cheriyal(v), Kandi Mandal. Plaintiff. And.

1.Baindla Buchaiah S/o. Late Sailu @ Sayanna, Age 50 years,

2. Cheemaldari Ramchandraiah S/o. Bakkaiah, Age 70 years,

3. Cheemaldari Mallesham S/o. Ch.Ramchandraiah, Age 45 years,

4. Baindla Durgamma W/o. Late Anjaiah, Age 45 years, All R/o.Cheriyal(v), Kandi Mandal.

Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri G.Ravinder, Advocate for the Plaintiff, defendants set-exparte, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T:

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property.

2. The plaint averments in brief are that one Baindla Balaiah was the common ancestor of the parties. The said Baindla Balaiah died long back leaving behind his two sons namely: Sailu @ Sayanna and

Ramulu and he left the land in Sy.No.170/5 admeasuring Ac.5-00 situated at Cheriyal(v), Mandal Kandi. The said Ramulu died un- married. After the death of common ancestor of the said land was 2 O.S.NO.192 OF 2016 mutuated in the name of his son Sailu @ Sayanna. The said Sailu @

Sayanna also died leaving behind his two sons i.e. plaintiff and defendant No.1 as his only legal heirs and successors, as such the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are Hindu Joint Family co-parceners and

Hindu Law governs on them. The joint family inherited the land in

Sy.No.170/5 admeasuring Ac.5-00 situated at Cheriyal(v), from their ancestor by way of succession. There is no partition and separate possession of the above said property in between the parties with metes and bounds, the said land is subject matter of the suit which is hereinafter called as suit schedule land.

It is further submitted that the suit schedule land is ancestral property and the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are in joint possession and enjoying the usufructs from the suit schedule land.

Thus the suit land is co-parcenary property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The father of the plaintiff namely: Sailu @ Sayanna is elder in the family and he was maintaining the joint family undivided property as elders and Kartha of the family and his name was entered in the revenue records as owner. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are in joint possession and taken away the shares of the crops. After the death of common ancestor, the land is mutuated and transferred in the name of father of the plaintiff Sailu @ Sayanna since he beingl the elder Kartha and Manager of the joint family. The said Sailu @

Sayanna used to give the yield every year of the crops towards the share of the plaintiff till his death. After the death of plaintiff’s father, the defendant is being the elder and looking after the joint family 3 O.S.NO.192 OF 2016 property on behalf of the joint family as Kartha. After that the defendant No.1 who is the elder brother of plaintiff, used to give the yield every year of the crops towards the share of the plaintiff till 2015. Due to sudden increase rates of the land the defendant No.1 stopped in giving the yield of crops to the plaintiff since last year, the plaintiff questioned the defendant No.1 and the defendant avoiding in one way or the other.

The plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 got transferred the suit schedule land in the name of defendants 2 to 4 illegally and the defendants are trying to alienate the suit schedule land to the third parties and illegally entered the name of the defendants in the revenue records. So, the plaintiff demanded defendant No.1 for partition and separate possession of his legitimate share, but the defendant No.1 avoided for the same on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff is entitled share along with the defendant No.1 i.e. half share each in the suit schedule land. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendants did not choose to contest the suit. Hence, the proceedings against defendants went in exparte.

4During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and two other witnesses are examined as Pws.2 and 3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 documents.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

4 O.S.NO.192 OF 2016

6.Now the point for consideration isthat “whether the

plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition and

separate possession in respect of the suit schedule land as claimed by him?

7.It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of plaintiff and defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 with dishonest intention sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendants 2 to 4 without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. The suit schedule land is not yet partition between the parties and it is the joint family property. The plaintiff requested the defendant No.1 for partition of the suit schedule land, but he refused for partition on one pretext or the other.

8.The defendants did not choose to contest the suit. Hence, they were set ex-parte. Therefore, it can be said that there is no resistance from the defendants to the claim made by the plaintiff over the suit schedule land. However, it is the plaintiff who approached the court, so it is the burden of the plaintiff to establish his case.

9.In order to establish his case the plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and also examined two other witnesses as Pws.2 and 3 in chief and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 documents. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of khasra pahani for the year, 1954-1955. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of ROR for the year 1979-1980. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of ROR for the year 1989-1990. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of 5 O.S.NO.192 OF 2016 pahani for the year 1990-1991, 1995-1996, 20001-01, 2005-06, 2007- 08, 2010-11 and 2012-2013. Ex.A5 is market value certificate.

10.The above documents proved that plaintiff is having share in suit schedule property and also supports the plaintiff’s version.

These documents of plaintiff remained unrebutted. This documentary evidence coupled with oral evidence of PW.1 to 3 proves the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has established that he is entitled for partition of suit schedule property/land. The sale transactions made by defendant1 No.1 in favour of defendants 2 to 4 are valid only to the extent of their respective shares. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11.In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed without costs dividing the suit schedule property into two equal shares and allotting one such share each to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 respectively.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of October,

2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS.

PW1 Baindla Pentaiah.Nil.

PW2 Juttu Ramaiah.

PW3 Juttu Lachaiah.

6 O.S.NO.192 OF 2016

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF.

Ex.A1 Certified copy of khasra pahani for the year, 1954-1955.

Ex.A2 Certified copy of ROR for the year 1979-1980.

Ex.A3 Certified copy of ROR for the year 1989-1990.

Ex.A4 Certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-1991, 1995-1996, 2001- 2001, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2010-11 and 2012-2013.

Ex.A5 is market value certificate.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS.

Nil

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

7 O.S.NO.192 OF 2016

H.M.O.P/42/2019 Compromised

Chakali @ Bombidiga Raju vs Kaulampet Swathi

31 Oct 2019

1 H.M.O.P. 42 OF 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SANGAREDDY

Present:-Smt. A.Neeraja,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

Thursday the 31st day of October, 2019

H.M.O.P.No. 42 of 2019.

Between:-

Chakali @ Bombidiga Raju S/o.Chakali @ Bombidiga Hanmanthu, Age l30 years, Govt. Employee. R/o.H.No.20-91, Bombay Colony, Near Masjid, Ramchandrapuram Town and Mandal. Petitioner No.1.

And

Smt.Kaulampet Swathi W/o. Chakali @ Bombidiga Raju D/o.Kaulampet Gopal Age 28 years, Now R/o. H.No.2-78/1, Chaitanya Nagar, Patancheru.

Petitioner No.2.

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri

B.Sanjeeva Reddy Advocate for the Petitioner No.1 and Sri B.Dayakar Reddy

Advocate for petitioner No.2, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the court delivered the following:-

O R D E R:-

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners Under Section 13-B of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1953 seeking decree of divorce on mutual consent.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the petitioner No.2 is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1 and their marriage was solemnized on 27-4-2016 at Gayathri Gardens, Pati X Road, Yellamma Temple,

Patancheru as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage the petitioners lived together happily for a period of eight monthly only, thereafter differences arose between them and since more than the petitioner No.2 is residing at her parents house. On the advise of the 2 H.M.O.P. 42 OF 2019 elders both the petitioners are decided to obtain a decree of divorce on mutual consent. During the settlement talks before the elders exchanged their belongings to each other gold, clothes and other articles etc., before granting divorce by the court. The petitioner No.2 is agreed that she shall not be going to claim present, past and future maintainance and alimony for her as she is agreed to take an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- towards permanent alimony, out of Rs.9,50,000/- the petitioner No.1 paid an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- by way of demand draft No.361946 dated: 8-4- 2019 of State Bank of India, Court Street, Sangareddy to the petitioner

No.2 and the remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is agreed by both the parties is to be paid by the petitioner No.1 to the petitioner No.2 at the time of divorce by way of demand draft or cash.

It is further submitted that during the wedlock no children born to the petitioner No.2. The petitioners are agreed that they will not make any claims or counter claims against each other at present and in future

before any court of law. Further, the petitioner No.2 had already filed

C.C.No.511/2017 on the file of JFCM. Spl. Mobile Court, Sangareddy

U/S.498-A and 323 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and DVC

No.36/2018 on the file of Addl. JFCM. Sangareddy against the petitioner

No.1, parents and the petitioner No.1, his parents and the petitioner

No.1’s mother also filed C.C.No.395/2018 U/Ss.354 and 324 IPC on the file of Excise Court,Sangareddy against the petitioner No.2, her parents and brothers. The petitioner No.2 stated that out off anxiety and misunderstanding she filed the case and that she has compromised

C.C.511/2017 against the petitioner No.1 and his parents on 8-4-2019 and DVC No.36/2018 is not pressed by the petitioner No.2 against the 3 H.M.O.P. 42 OF 2019 petitioner No.1 on 8-4-2019 and the petitioner No.1 and his mother compromised C.C.395/2018 against the petitioner No.2 and her parents and brothers on 8-4-2019 before granting divorce.

It is further submitted that the matrimonial relations between the petitioners are completely irretrievably broken down since for the past two years and since then they are living separately. The petitioners further stated that they shall not claim anything from each other from the date of filing of the present mutual divorce case and also after obtaining the decree of divorce and they shall not interfere in their respective movable and immovable properties. The petitioner No.2 agreed that she will not claim present, past and future alimony or maintainance from the petitioner No.1 and that there is no collusion between the petitioners in filing this petition and prayed to grant decree of divorce on mutual consent.

3.After registering the petition, both parties are advised and suggested by the court to make active efforts to settle the disputes amicably and also make an effort to live together and further advising them to think-over the matter and see that the petition is withdrawn taking time of six months from the date of registration of this petition.

4.Date of hearing was given for their appearance granting six months time for their re-thinking and withdrawal of the petition.

5.On the date of hearing both parties appeared before this court and represented that there are no chances of living together and that both of them are prepared to take divorce. It is under those 4 H.M.O.P. 42 OF 2019 circumstances, this court is inclined to make an enquiry as a part of it both parties i.e. couple are examined on the filing of their respective evidence affidavits. They are examined as Pws.1 and 2 and got documents marked on their behalf as Exs.A1 to A2.

6.Their testimonies have been scrutinized by the court including the documentary evidence.

7.Heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused.

8.The point for determination is:

“Whether there are any justifiable grounds to allow the petition as prayed for”?

POINT:-

9.As already mentioned above, inspite of six months time granted from the date of registration of the petition, there is no change in the attitude of both parties and they stick on to get their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent. Inspite of best efforts made by the court and settlement committee in this regard, the couple did not make any attempt to change their attitude in living together. It is under those circumstances, this court does not find no other way except to accept the request of the couple and dissolve their marriage by granting a decree of divorce. Accordingly, this point is held.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage of the petitioners solemnized on 27-4-2016 is dissolved by a decree of divorce 5 H.M.O.P. 42 OF 2019 on mutual consent. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of October, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER. RESPONDENT.

PW1: Chakali @ Bombidiga Raju.Nil.

PW2: Smt. Kaulampet Swathi.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.

Ex.A1: Marriage wedding card of the petitioners.

Ex.A2: Aadhard cards of the petitioners attested by their counsels.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

Nil.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

6 H.M.O.P. 42 OF 2019

H.M.O.P/41/2019

Smt.Garela Manjula vs Garela Mohan

31 Oct 2019

1 H.M.O.P. 41 OF 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SANGAREDDY

Present:-Smt. A.Neeraja,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

Thursday the 31st day of October, 2019

H.M.O.P.No. 41 of 2019.

Between:-

Smt. Garela Manjula W/o. Garela Mohan D/o.Narsimlu, Age 26 years, R/o. H.No.2-38, Kondapur(v) and Mandal. Petitioner No.1.

And

Garela Mohan S/o. Narsimlu, Age 31 years, R/o.H.No.1-38, Ravulapally(v), Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad Dist. Petitioner No.2.

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri

B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the court delivered the following:-

O R D E R:-

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners Under Section 13-B of

Hindu Marriage Act, seeking decree of divorce on mutual consent.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner No.2 and their marriage was solemnized on 2-12-2010 at her parents house at Kondapur(v),. After the marriage both the petitioners lived happily for a period of six years, The petitioner No.1 has not blessed with any child, thereafter differences arose between them. The petitioner No.1 is residing at her parents house and they are not living as wife and husband. Both the petitioners on the advise of elders and well wishers decided to obtain a decree of divorce on mutual consent. It is further stated that during the settlement before 2 H.M.O.P. 41 OF 2019 the elders they ready to exchange their belongings to each other before filing of this petition by way of mutual consent. The petitioner No.1 agreed that she shall not be going to claim present, past and future maintainance and alimony for her as she is agreed to take an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- towards permanent alimony, out of Rs.3,30,000/-. The petitioner No.2 has paid fan amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to the petitioner No.1 by way of cash

before the witnesses on 30-3-2019 and the separate receipt was

executed by the petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.2 and the remaining amount of Rs.2,05,000/- is agreed by both the parties is to be paid by the petitioner No.2 to the petitioner No.1 at the time of divorce by way of demand draft or cash.

It is further submitted that the petitioners are agreed that they will not make any claims or counter claims against each other and also agreed that they shall not file any civil or criminal cases before the court against each other at present and in future also they are agreed they will not interfere at any time in their respective movable or immovable properties. The petitioner is agreed that she shall not claim present, past and future alimony or maintainance from the petitioner No.2. They further stated that the matrimonial relations between the petitioners are completely strained and irretrievably broken down since more than two years and they are living separately and there is no collusion between them in filing this petition. Hence, this petition.

3.After registering the petition, both parties are advised and suggested by the court to make active efforts to settle the disputes amicably and also make an effort to live together and further advising 3 H.M.O.P. 41 OF 2019 them to think-over the matter and see that the petition is withdrawn taking time of six months from the date of registration of this petition.

4.Date of hearing was given for their appearance granting six months time for their re-thinking and withdrawal of the petition.

5.On the date of hearing both parties appeared before this court and represented that there are no chances of living together and that both of them are prepared to take divorce. It is under those circumstances, this court is inclined to make an enquiry as a part of it both parties i.e. couple are examined on the filing of their respective evidence affidavits. They are examined as Pws.1 and 2 and got documents marked on their behalf as Exs.A1 to A2.

6.Their testimonies have been scrutinized by the court including the documentary evidence.

7.Heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused.

8.The point for determination is:

“Whether there are any justifiable grounds to allow the petition as prayed for”?

POINT:-

9.As already mentioned above, inspite of six months time granted from the date of registration of the petition, there is no change in the attitude of both parties and they stick on to get their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent. Inspite of best efforts made by the court and settlement committee in this regard, the couple did not make any attempt to change their attitude in living together. It is under 4 H.M.O.P. 41 OF 2019 those circumstances, this court does not find no other way except to accept the request of the couple and dissolve their marriage by granting a decree of divorce. Accordingly, this point is held.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage of the petitioners solemnized on 2-12-2010 is dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of October, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER. RESPONDENT.

PW1: Smt. Garela Manjula.Nil.

PW2: Garela Mohan.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.

Ex.A1: Marriage wedding card of petitioners.

Ex.A2: Aadhar card of the petitioners attested by their counsels.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

Nil.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

OS/179/2019 Compromised

Chinta Vijay Kumar vs Chinta Krishnaveni and another

26 Aug 2019

H.M.O.P/93/2018

Dommeti Harish vs Dommeti Latha

04 Sep 2019

Order Record 645 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/75/2019	M/s. Shriram Chits Pvt Ltd, Rep by its G.P.A. holder Mr. A. Venugopal Naidu vs Salabin Ahmed	31 Oct 2019	Reference is closed	—
OS/42/2015	N. Pentaiah vs E. Nagaiah	31 Oct 2019	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/192/2016	Baindly Pentaiah vs Baindla Buchaiah	31 Oct 2019	Decreed	—
H.M.O.P/41/2019	Smt.Garela Manjula vs Garela Mohan	31 Oct 2019	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/42/2019	Chakali @ Bombidiga Raju vs Kaulampet Swathi	31 Oct 2019	Petition is allowed	Compromised
H.M.O.P/128/2018	Saidaiah Rasamsetti vs Anuradha Rasamsetti	31 Oct 2019	Dismissed for Default	—
H.M.O.P/1/2019	Smt. Barla veeresham vs Smt. Ramshetty shilpa	30 Oct 2019	Order	—
H.M.O.P/11/2019	Smt. B. Mounika vs B.Vijay Kumar	30 Oct 2019	Order	—
EP/19/2019	N.Hanumanth Reddy vs Razia Begum and 06 ORS	29 Oct 2019	Reference is closed	—
H.M.O.P/120/2018	Kalali Madhavi vs Kalali Prasad Goud	29 Oct 2019	Petition is allowed	—
OS/21/2019	Sri K.Ramulu vs Kanukula Padma Reddy	28 Oct 2019	decreed with costs	—
OS/217/2019	Kalivemula Anasuja and 04 others vs Chintha Venkatesham and 08 others	28 Oct 2019	Decreed	—
OS/244/2019	Kambham Ramalinga Reddy vs N. Srinivasula Reddy	28 Oct 2019	Decreed	—
H.M.O.P/62/2017	Dhandu Vikram Yadav vs Vs	28 Oct 2019	Petition is allowed	—
OS/117/2019	Akkala Prabhakar Goud vs Garela Jayakumar Goud	25 Oct 2019	Decreed	—
H.M.O.P/6/2017	Jadavath Tukram vs Chouhan Neethu Singh	25 Oct 2019	Reference is closed	—
H.M.O.P/9/2019	Kurra Manmadha Rao vs K.Priyanka	24 Oct 2019	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/11/2019	Smt.Kondanolla @ Munnooru Vijaya Lakshmi @ Ramya vs Kondanolla Mahipal Reddy	24 Oct 2019	Petition is allowed	—
S.O.P/9/2018	A.Yadaiah and 05 others vs The Special Collector, LA ORRRP Unit-VI	24 Oct 2019	Petition is allowed	—
OS/110/2015	Kaveli devi Balamani vs Gaddam Kistamma alias manemma	21 Oct 2019	Dismissed	—
H.M.O.P/82/2018	N.Spoorthy and another vs Vs	21 Oct 2019	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/39/2016	S. Madneshwar vs Babu Rao	16 Oct 2019	Order	—
H.M.O.P/16/2018	Boini Madhu Krishna vs Pooja	16 Oct 2019	Order	—
OS/62/2019	Smt.Kaveli Padma and 02 ORS vs T.Bagaiah and 04 ORS	15 Oct 2019	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/305/2013	Adla Vijaya vs P. Laxmamma	15 Oct 2019	Dismissed	—
H.M.O.P/1/2019	Meedigadda Ram Krishna vs Meedigadda Santhoshi Rani @ Rayini Santhoshi Rani	14 Oct 2019	Dismissed for Default	—
H.M.O.P/36/2019	MRS.Nidhi Sinha vs Mr.Rajesh Sinha	14 Oct 2019	Petition is allowed	—
OS/102/2019	Smt.Bijja Manga vs Smt.Domala Padmavathi and ANTH	01 Oct 2019	Dismissed	—
OS/249/2019	Uppireddi Madhusudhan Reddy vs Mylaram Pedda Ramaiah @ Mylaram Pedda Ramulu	01 Oct 2019	compromise	—
H.M.O.P/33/2019	Taneja Amith vs Daman Preet @ Sonal	01 Oct 2019	Dismissed	—
OS/103/2019	Manne Bikshapathi vs Manne Laxminarayana and ANTH	30 Sep 2019	Decreed	—
H.M.O.P/12/2019	Maddineni Govardhani vs Maddineni Srinivasa Rao	30 Sep 2019	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/26/2019	Mahankali @ Bandaram Jhansi Rani vs Mahankali Narendra Chary	30 Sep 2019	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/31/2019	Boini Anjaneyulu vs B.Bhagyalatha	30 Sep 2019	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/63/2018	Medigeri Latha vs Munipally Siddeshwar	30 Sep 2019	Dismissed	—
H.M.O.P/88/2019	Dappu Balraj vs Vssmt. Dappu Jyothi	30 Sep 2019	Dismissed	—
OS/59/2016	State Bank of India, Branch Sangareddy vs Gangulakurthy Nageshwara Rao	27 Sep 2019	decreed with costs	—
H.M.O.P/4/2019	D. Anjaneyulu vs D. Aparna @ Aparanjani	27 Sep 2019	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/5/2019	Boddu Revanth vs Chanda Rachana	27 Sep 2019	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/55/2019	Reddyboina Neel Kumar vs R. Dhanalakshmi	27 Sep 2019	Petition is allowed	—
S.O.P/14/2019	Joshi Madhavi and 02 others vs The Branch Manager, APGVB, Patancheru Branch and 02 others	27 Sep 2019	Dismissed	—
H.M.O.P/6/2019	Pichakuntla Venkatesh vs Pichakuntala Keerthi Priya @ Shivaleela	26 Sep 2019	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/14/2019	Shravani vs Talla Ramu Goud	26 Sep 2019	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/23/2019	Pet.No.1 Smt.Valaboju Swapna vs Pet.No.2 Valaboju Srikanth	26 Sep 2019	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/29/2018	Yellagari Gouthami Reddy vs Mannem Naga Madhukiran	26 Sep 2019	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/62/2019	Cheerala Shekar vs Pochigari Madhavi	26 Sep 2019	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/106/2018	Sneha Singh vs Harish Singh Rathore	26 Sep 2019	Petition is allowed	—
H.M.O.P/39/2019	Timmapur Manjula @ Manjula vs Hanmanth	25 Sep 2019	Order	—
H.M.O.P/118/2018	P.Madhu Kumar vs Smt.P.Srilatha	24 Sep 2019	Petition is allowed	—
OS/230/2019	SBI SANGAREDDY BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER vs LOKAREDDYGARI RAMREDDY	23 Sep 2019	Dismissed	—
OS/320/2017	Erukala Laxmamma vs Erukala Narsimlu	23 Sep 2019	Dismissed	—
OS/150/2019	Mohammed Abdul Qadeer vs Anugu Sitharam Reddy and 02 Others	21 Sep 2019	Dismissed	—
OS/131/2015	State bank of India vs P Nawaz Reddy	16 Sep 2019	Dismissed	—
OS/174/2015	The Chief Manager, State Bank of India vs CH. Krishna Goud	16 Sep 2019	Dismissed	—
OS/181/2019	State Bank of India, Branch Sangareddy vs Golla Venkatesham and another	13 Sep 2019	Dismissed	—
H.M.O.P/106/2017	Vadnala Madan Kumar vs Vodnal Nayani	13 Sep 2019	Dismissed	—
H.M.O.P/93/2018	Dommeti Harish vs Dommeti Latha	04 Sep 2019	Reference is closed	—
SC/26/2019	Ps KOheer vs Irfan Ali	30 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/5/2019	M. parashuramulu @ Prashanth vs M. Venkata Laxmi @ Jahnavi	30 Aug 2019	Order	—
SC/14/2019	Ps Narayankhed vs Sammi Laxmaiah	29 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
SC/15/2019	Ps Narayankhed vs Gaddameedi Nagaiah @ Chinna Nagaiah	29 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
SC/26/2019	Ps KOheer vs Irfan Ali	29 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
SC/362/2015	The state of telangana through P.S. Raikode vs K.Shekar	29 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/179/2019	Chinta Vijay Kumar vs Chinta Krishnaveni and another	26 Aug 2019	compromise	Compromised
OS/236/2018	Manne Balraj vs Rathnamma Infratech Private Limited	26 Aug 2019	Dismissed	—
OP/4/2014	Smt.C.Tulsamma vs The Branch Manager Axis Branch Zaheerabad Medak	19 Aug 2019	Order	—
OS/8/2012	Smt Narva Laxmi vs D1. G.Vijaya Kumar	19 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/46/2012	Bheemla vs The Dist Collector	19 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
SC/14/2019	Ps Narayankhed vs Sammi Laxmaiah	19 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
SC/15/2019	Ps Narayankhed vs Gaddameedi Nagaiah @ Chinna Nagaiah	19 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
SC/26/2019	Ps KOheer vs Irfan Ali	19 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
SC/126/2018	Ps Kalher vs Bagili Machender	19 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
SC/362/2015	The state of telangana through P.S. Raikode vs K.Shekar	19 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
CMA/2/2017	R.Uma Maheshwari being Minor Represented by her natural Mother Smt.R.Rukmini vs Smt.Nagamma	31 Jul 2019	Order	—
OS/43/2018	Syed Mahboob Ali vs Vs	31 Jul 2019	Judgement	—
SC/127/2017	PS Jharasangam vs Begari Prabhakar	31 Jul 2019	Judgement	—
SC/241/2018	PS Manoor vs Ette @Edde Venkat Reddy	31 Jul 2019	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/38/2019	Kulkarni Santosh vs Gadila Mamatha	31 Jul 2019	Order	—
H.M.O.P/37/2018	Matam Karthik vs Matam @ Vadde Sailatha	26 Jul 2019	Order	—
H.M.O.P/48/2017	Bijja Chandrakala@Latha vs Bijja Ramesh	26 Jul 2019	Order	—
H.M.O.P/3/2019	P. chandrashekar vs P. Navitha	25 Jul 2019	Order	—
H.M.O.P/25/2018	Madapathi Veeraiah Swamy vs Madapathi vijaya	25 Jul 2019	Order	—
OS/58/2018	Yes Reddy vs Durgareddy	19 Jul 2019	Order	—
H.M.O.P/39/2017	B.Swapna vs B.Sanjeev	19 Jul 2019	Order	—
OS/15/2012	Smt.Lalitha vs D1.Smt.Sonnaila Kalavathi	13 Jul 2019	Other	—
OS/16/2015	Begari Adivaiah vs Begari Bhoomaiah	13 Jul 2019	Other	—
OS/16/2018	Smt.Naseem Begum vs Abdul Salam	13 Jul 2019	Order	—
OS/32/2018	Irigipally Vijayalaxmi vs Yempally Chandramma	13 Jul 2019	Other	—
H.M.O.P/17/2019	S. Ambika vs T. Santosh Kumar	09 Jul 2019	Order	—
OS/15/2017	Buchanpally Hanmanth Reddy vs Buchanpally Anji Reddy	05 Jul 2019	Order	—
OS/12/2018	Aman Ghouri vs B.Bakkanna	28 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/27/2012	Smt.Mulge Renuka @ Triveni vs D1.K.Baswaraj	28 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/36/2018	P Rajamma vs G. Pandappa	28 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/41/2012	Sangaiah vs D1.Chandravva	28 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/49/2018	Patwari Triveni vs G Tuljamma	28 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/38/2018	smt. T. Maheshwari vs C. yadagiri	28 Jun 2019	Order	—
S.O.P/35/2017	Dappu Mogulaiah vs The General Mangare,(T.D), BSNL	28 Jun 2019	Order	—
OS/1/2012	D.Ramesh @ Ramesh Rao vs D1.Smt.Thulasi Bai	27 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/28/2016	HDFC bank ltd, Ameerpet branch rep.by its DM vs Sheri Siddanna	27 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/83/2014	P.1.Razia Begum vs D.1.Rasheed Patel	27 Jun 2019	Order	—

Showing 100 of 645 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2019		32
Sep 2019		28
Aug 2019		16
Jul 2019		17
Jun 2019		27
May 2019		8
Apr 2019		17
Mar 2019		23
Feb 2019		12
Jan 2019		20
Dec 2018		19
Nov 2018		26

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt A Neeraja handled?

Smt A Neeraja has handled 660 court orders since 2017 at Sangareddy, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 22 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt A Neeraja hear?

Based on available records, Smt A Neeraja primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Sangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt A Neeraja currently posted?

Smt A Neeraja is posted as Senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Sangareddy, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt A Neeraja available online?

Yes. 8 judgments by Smt A Neeraja are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt A Neeraja dispose cases?

Smt A Neeraja disposes approximately 22 cases per month, based on 660 orders handled over their tenure at Sangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt A Neeraja serving?

Smt A Neeraja has been serving at Sangareddy, PDJ Court Complex since 2017.

Case Types

OS 37%

SC 23%

H 21%

EP 12%

OP 2%

AS 2%

CMA 2%

S 2%

Posting History

Sep 2019 — Oct 2019

Senior Civil Judge · 52 orders
Aug 2019 — Sep 2019

Senior Civil Judge · 3 orders
May 2017 — Oct 2019

Senior Civil Judge · 605 orders

Outcomes on Record

Compromised 2

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. G.bhavani Chandra

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

412 orders

Smt. K. Jayanthi,

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangare...

2,402 orders

Smt D.Madhavi Krishna

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and ST...

42 orders

Sri M.Satish Kumar

Judge, Family Court cum IV Additional District an...

39 orders

Smt. R. Sreelekha

Fast Track Sessions Court for expeditious disposal...

25 orders

Mrs. T Durga Rani Kalidindi

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Mobile)...

710 orders

Ms. Amishi Jajiyan

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial o...

3 orders

Salma Fatima

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistra...

19 orders

Smt Dhana lakshmi

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional...

1,673 orders

DVR Tejo Karthik

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum-Assistant Sessio...

513 orders

Deepti

Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Assis...

294 orders

← View all judges at Sangareddy, PDJ Court Complex

Smt A Neeraja

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SANGAREDDY.

J U D G M E N T:

plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition and

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SANGAREDDY

O R D E R:-

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER. RESPONDENT.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SANGAREDDY

O R D E R:-

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER. RESPONDENT.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

IN THE COURT OF

OS/179/2019

JUDGMENT

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF

H.M.O.P/93/2018

JUDGMENT

ORDER