Kum. A. Sai Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda

Junior Civil Judge

Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Uravakonda (Taluka) · Ananthapur · Andhra Pradesh

Kum. A. Sai Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda, Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Uravakonda (Taluka), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,868 court orders on record since 2013. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

1,868

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/76/2016

Bandhook Suseelamma alias sujatha vs Boggu sunkappa

26 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : URAVAKONDA.

Present : Kum. Sai Kumari A, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda.

Wednesday, the 26 th day of April, 2017.

O.S.No. 76 of 2016.

Between :

B.Suseelamma@Sujatha ….. Plaintiff

And

1.B.Sunkappa 2.B.Adilakshmi 3.T.Peddakka 4.B.Lakshmamma ….Defendants

This suit for to pass a Preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of plaintiff’s 1/5th share in plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

This suit coming on 24-4-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Ram Mohan,Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.

P.Adinarayana Reddy, Advocate for the defendant No-2, and D1 and D3 being called absent and set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

Brief facts of Plaint as follows:-

One late B.Obulesu and his wife B.Lakshmamma i.e., D-4 residents of

Vajrakaruru village have got two sons and two daughters viz., plaintiff herein,

D-3, D-1 and B.Chennakesavulu, who is no more. D-2 is the wife of late

B.Chennakesavulu. The plaint schedule mentioned property is the ancestral property of late B.P. Obulesu. After the demise of B.P. Obulesu, his wife, sons and daughters have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property, who are the constituted the members of the

Hindu Un-divided joint family. The plaint schedule mentioned property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendants and with the permission of plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4, D1 and D2 have obtained the pattadar pass books and title deeds in their favour over the plaint schedule mentioned property for the purpose of Bank loan facility and for subsidy 2 seeds and fertilizers and other Government benefits for joint cultivation of the plaint schedule mentioned property. The Revenue records over the plaint schedule mentioned property are stands in favour of D1 and D2. The plaint schedule mentioned property are stands in favour of D1 and D2. The plaint schedule mentioned property is not partitioned by metes and bounds till now.

The plaintiff requested the defendants for amicable partition and separate possession of the joint family properties. D1 to D4 are postponing the same from one pretext or the another. Finally on 3-8-2015 and 18-8-2015 the plaintiff and D3 and D4 got issued a legal notice against D1 and D2 demanding for amicable partition and separate possession of the joint family properties. D-1 received the legal notice and the notice of D-2 returned as unserved. After issuing of the legal notices D-3 and D-4 colluded with D1 and

D2 and trying to evade the share of the plaintiff. D1 to D4 did not com forward for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property.

The plaintiff will get 1/5th share, and D1 to D4 will get 1/5th share each in plaint schedule mentioned property. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s 1/5th share in the plaint schedule mentioned property.

2) Written statement filed by the Defendant No-2 denied all the allegations mentioned in the plaint and contended that during the life time of her husband D-1, husband of D-2 and D-4 partitioned the suit schedule property on 17-1-2008. In that partition D-1 and husband of D-2 taken the suit schedule land and the house bearing No.3/59 is given to D-4 and a cash of Rs.10,000/- given to D-4. Accordingly, the same was written in the stamp papers. A part of the stamp paper is with this defendant and other parts of stamp papers are with D1 and D4. The available part of the stamp paper is filed herewith. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

3) Points for consideration:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled 1/5th share in the plaint schedule property as prayed for?

2. Whether there is a previous partition among the plaintiff husband and D1 to D4?

3. To What relief?

4) Issue No.1 and 2 : In order to prove the plaintiff case plaintiff examined as PW.1. His chief affidavit contents confronted through by his counsel and Witness admitted his signature. Ex.A1 is Digitally signed certificate of 1-B Namuna (ROR) stands in favour of D1, Khata No.182 dt/- 27-10-2015. Ex.A2 is Digitally signed certificate of 1-B (ROR) stands in favour of D2, Khata No.2150 dt/ 27-10-2015. Ex.A3 is Digitally signed certificate of

Adangal stands in favour of D-1 dt/- 25-8-2014. Ex.A4 is Digitally signed certificate of Adangal stands in favour of D-2 dt/-25-8-2014. Ex.A5 is the office copy of legal notice dt/- 3-8-2015. Ex.A6 is the postal receipt dt/- 3-8- 2015. Ex.A7 is the postal receipt, dt/- 3-8-2015. Ex.A8 is the office copy of legal notice dt/- 18-8-2015. Ex.A9 is the postal receipt, dt/- 18-8-2015.

Ex.A10 is the served postal acknowledgment card of D-1 dt/- 4-8-2015 and

Ex.A11 is the un-served regd. postal cover of D-2 dt/ 11-8-2015.

During the Cross examination the Defendant No-2 Counsel confronted that she admitted that after consult of D1, D3, D4 then she filed the suit. D-1 is her younger brother. D-3 is her younger sister. D-4 is her mother.

Chennakesavulu is the husband of D-2. D-2’s husband is her younger brother. She admitted that after consult of all members, then they entered into the agreement, then the plaint schedule property given to D1 and husband of D-2. She denied a suggestion that at the time of partition for her mother share Rs.10,000/- given. She denied a suggestion that she filed a false suit against D-2 for harass because of her husband died. She denied a suggestion that D-2 is not care the words of her for that she filed false suit with wrongful intention. D-2 is residing at Nancerla village, Chippagiri Mandal of Kurnool District. She denied a suggestion that D-2 is unable to bear harassment from her. She denied a suggestion that due to her harassment,

D-2 is residing at Nancherla village after death of her husband. She denied a 4 suggestion that for grab the property from D-2, she filed false suit against D- 2.

5) Suit is filed for partition and separate possession of 1/5th share in the plaint schedule property. Plaint schedule property is in two items in

Sy.No.665-4 with an extent of 4-38 cents and 3-52 cents. Both the survey numbers of the land consisting only one plot and within the following boundaries: East:Land of Kuruba Jayaramulu. West: Land of Mallaiah.

North:Land of Govinda Rajulu and South:Land of Yankanna. The plaintiff came to the box to prove the contents of plaint. To support of his evidence the plaintiff is examined as PW1. D-2 filed written statement.

6) As per evidence of PW1, his parents are B.Obulesu and

B.Lakshmamma ie., D-4 herein. His father B.Obulesu is no more. His parents have got two sons and two daughters ie., himself and D-3, D-1 and

B.Chennakesavulu who is no more. D-2 is the wife of late B.Chennakesavulu.

The plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of his father late B.P.

Obulesu. After the demise of his father, himself and D-1 to D-4 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and they are all constituted the members of the Hindu Undivided Joint family. The plaint schedule mentioned property is in joint possession and enjoyment of himself and defendants herein, and with the permission of himself and D-3 and D4,

D1 and D2 have obtained the pattadar pass books and title deeds in their favour over the plaint schedule mentioned property for the purpose of Bank loan facility and for subsidy seeds and fertilizers and other Govt. benefits, for joint cultivation of the plaint schedule mentioned property. The revenue records over the plaint schedule mentioned property is are stands infavour of D-1 and D2. The plaint schedule mentioned property is not partitioned by metes and bounds till now. PW1 requested D1 to d4 for amicable partition and separate possession of the joint family properties. They are postponing the same from one pretext or the other. Finally, on 3-8-2015 and 18-8-2015 himself and D-3 and D-4 got issued a legal notice against D1 and d2 demanding for amicable partition and separate possession of the joint family 5 properties. D-1 received the legal notice, and the notice of D-2 returned as unserved. After issuing the legal notices D3 and D4 colluded with D1 and D2 and trying to evade the share of herself. D1 to D4 did not come forward for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule mentioned property.

Hence she constrained to file this suit against defendants for partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share in plaint schedule mentioned property.

7) As per Ex.A4 adangal for fasli 1424 Sunkanna, Mallaiah, Pedda

Obuluesu and Chinna Kesanna are in possession of plaint schedule property in Sy.No.669. total extent of 14.80 cents . As per 1-B Namuna Ex.A2 D-3 is in possession of 3.96 cts in Sy.No.669 and 665. As per Ex.A1 1-B Namuna D-1 is in possession of 3-95 cts. in Sy.No.669 and 665. As per plaint schedule property Ac.7-90 cts is in possession of D1 and D2. D-2 is the daughter-in- law of P.Obulesu her husband was no more. As per Exs. A1 to A3, D1 and D2 are in possession of ancestral property of plaint schedule property and D2 contested in this case.

8) During cross examination, the learned defence counsel confronted that D-1 is her younger brother and D-3 is her younger sister. D4 is her mother. Chennakesavulu is the husband of D-2. D-2’s husband is her younger brother. She admitted that after consult of all members, then they entered into the agreement, then the plaint schedule property given to D-1 and husband of D2. PW1 admitted after consult of all members, then they entered into the agreement, then the plaint schedule property given to D1 and husband of D2. PW1 denied a suggestion that at the time of partition for her mother share Rs.10,000/-. D-2 is residing at Nancherla village, Chippagiri mandal of Kurnool District. PW1 denied a suggestion that D-2 is unable to bear harassment from her. PW1 denied a suggestion that due to her harassment, D2 is residing at Nancherla village after death of her husband.

As per contents of written statement of defendant Rs.10,000/- was given to

D4. Accordingly the same was written in the stamp papers. A part of the stamp paper is with this defendant and other parts of stamp papers are with

D1 and D4. But there is no evidence about the partition of the property by 6

D-1 and her husband along with mother and sister. As per evidence of Exs.

A1 to A3 plaint schedule property is ancestral property. The plaintiff admitted after consulting they entered into an agreement. As per agreement, there is no plea of the property given to the plaintiff at the time of partition by D1 and D2. There is no denial about the property the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property . As per agreement they are admitted that no property was given to the plaintiff and D-3 is daughter as per 1995 and 2005 of State and Central Amendment daughters are also entitled for partition. As per A.P. and Central Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff is entitled 1/5th share. As per above discussion, Issue No-1 and 2 are in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

9) ISSUE NO-3:-

In the result, suit is decreed with preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of plaintiff’s 1/5th share in plaint schedule property.

Each party do bear their own costs.

Typed on my dictation to Steno, corrected and Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 26th day of April, 2017.

Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for:-

Plaintiff : Defendants:

PW.1:B.Suseelamma

Exhibits marked for plaintiff :

Ex.A1/ Digitally signed certificate of 1-B Namuna (ROR) stands in favour of

D1, Khata No.182 dt/- 27-10-2015.

Ex.A2/ Digitally signed certificate of 1-B (ROR) stands in favour of D2, Khata

No.2150 dt/ 27-10-2015.

Ex.A3/ Digitally signed certificate of Adangal stands in favour of D-1 dt/- 25- 8-2014.

Ex.A4/ Digitally signed certificate of Adangal stands in favour of D-2 dt/-25- 8-2014.

Ex.A5/Office copy of legal notice dt/- 3-8-2015.

Ex.A6/ Postal receipt dt/- 3-8-2015.

Ex.A7/Postal receipt, dt/- 3-8-2015.

Ex.A8/ Office copy of legal notice dt/- 18-8-2015.

Ex.A9/Postal receipt, dt/- 18-8-2015.

Ex.A10/ Served postal acknowledgment card of D-1 dt/- 4-8-2015

Ex.A11/ Un-served regd. postal cover of D-2 dt/ 11-8-2015.

Exhibits marked for the Defendants :

NIL

J.C.J.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : URAVAKONDA.

Present : Kum. Sai Kumari A, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda.

Tuesday, the 10 th day of February, 2015.

O.S.No. 76 of 2012.

Between :

K.Basappa ….. Plaintiff

And

1.Sunkanna 2.Mallamma ….Defendants

This suit for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, relatives from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property and for costs of the suit. This suit coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Viswanath and Sri A.Damodar Naidu, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri. P.Adinarayana Reddy, Advocate for the defendants, and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

At 5-00 P.M. suit is dismissed for default. Plaintiff is called absent on condition suit is dismissed for default.

Typed on my dictation to Steno, corrected and Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 10th day of February, 2015.

Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for:-

Plaintiff : Defendants:

-NIL- -NIL-

Exhibits marked for plaintiff :

-NIL- 9

Exhibits marked for the Defendants :

-NIL-

J.C.J.

OS/31/2014

T. Narasimhulu, Age 52 yrs vs Malapati Sreenivasulu, AGe 48 yrs

25 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : URAVAKONDA.

Present : Kum. Sai Kumari Akuri, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda.

Tuesday, the 25th day of April, 2017.

Original Suit No. 31 of 2014

Between :

T.Narasimhulu ..Plaintiff

And

1.M.Sreenivasulu 2.M.Venkatesulu. 3.M.Lakshmi Devi 4.M.Dhanunjaya 5.M.Lavanya

6.C.Sharada ..Defendants.

The suit filed for specific performance to direct the defendants to execute and register the sale deed at the expenses of the plaintiff after measuring the land and receive the balance of sale consideration, conveying the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff and in case of the defendants fails to execute the sale deed as directed by this Court, it is prayed that the court on behalf of the defendants execute and register the sale deed conveying the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff at his own expenses after depositing the balance of sale consideration in the court.

This suit coming on 4-04-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Lakshmanna and Sri.P.Adinarayana Reddy, Advocates for the plaintiff, and the defendants being called absent and set-exparte having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1) Brief facts of Plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff and one Narasimhulu are the sons of late T.Naganna.

The said T.Naganna is the son of T.C.Rangappa. D1 and D2 are the sons of late M.Venkataswamy who is the eldest son of late M.Thimmappa. The said

M.Thimmmappa and M.C.Ramaiah had only two sons by name

M.Venkataswamy as mentioned above and M.C.Ramaiah. The said

M.C.Ramaiah died leaving behind his wife M.Lakshmi Devi 3rd defendant herein and his son M.Dhanunjaya 4th defendant as his legal heirs to his estate. D5 is the wife of D4 M.Dhanunjaya. D-6 is the purchaser of the suit schedule property from D-5 and so she is added as necessary party to the 2 suit proceedings. The suit schedule property originally belongs to

M.Thimmappa s/o C.Ramaiah of Chayapuram village. During the life time of the said M.Thimmappa has entered into an agreement of sale with

T.Naganna to sold the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.11,200/- per acre. That on 2-7-1987 the intending purchaser T.Naganna was also agreed to purchase the same for the said valuable consideration and accordingly the vendor M.Thimmappa executed an agreement of sale in favour of the said T.Naganna after having received a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards advance of sale consideration on the date of sale agreement i.e., 2- 7-1987. As seen from the recitals in the sale agreement the property mentioned in the schedule was in possession and enjoyment of the same with the vendor and the approximate extent of land is 6.30 acres and the vendor was also agreed to accept to receive the advance amount of

Rs.2,000/- towards advance amount and it is also stipulated in the agreement that balance amount has to be paid on or before 10-2-1988 and get regular registered sale deed before SRO, Guntakal or SRO, Uravakonda from the vendor. As seen from the document a condition is stipulated underneath of sale agreement that a sum of Rs.18,000/- has to be paid on or

before 2-8-1987, otherwise the advance amount paid will be forfeited. By the

time of the above stipulated condition the said M.Thimmappa executants is died so the purchaser the said M.Thimmappa executants is died so the purchaser T.Naganna has paid a sum of Rs.18,010/- on 2-8-1987 to

M.C.Ramaiah s/o M.Thimmappa and obtained the signature on the back of the sale agreement. Again on 10-2-1988 the said T.Naganna has paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- to M.C.Ramaiah and obtained his signature on the back of the sale agreement. It is also mentioned in the agreement that the remaining balance amount to be paid on the date of registration, thereafter the said

M.C.Ramaiah the son of the original vendor M.Thimmappa and the purchaser

T.Naganna both of them are died, and the property has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the purchaser T.Naganna as the substantial sale consideration has been paid by the said T.Naganna. Thereafter neither 3 the legal heirs of the vendors or the purchaser demanded for execution of the sale deed. But the suit schedule property has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the legal heirs of the deceased T.Naganna without any interruption from any of the legal heirs of the deceased

M.Thimmappa or his legal heirs at any point of time for about 25 years i.e., from the date of agreement. The plaintiff and his brother are the legal heirs of the deceased T.Naganna, but during the partition between the plaintiff and his brother the suit schedule property is given to the share of the plaintiff and so the plaintiff alone filed the suit and ever since the suit schedule property is in possession of the plaintiff alone. There is a balance of

Rs.5,550/- towards entire sale consideration to be paid on the date of sale deed after measuring the land and determine the exact extent. The plaintiff as a legal heir of the deceased had have been always ready and willing to perform his part of contract left behind from the deceased T.Naganna, whereas the defendants have been avoiding to perform their part of contract left behind from their ancestors. The father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has leveled the suit land by spending huge amount and make it suitable for cultivation under canal water and they have been raising paddy crop every year openly to the knowledge of every one without any interruption from anybody else including the defendants. The plaintiff and his father T.Naganna had have been uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the same in their possession of the suit schedule property since from the date of sale agreement dt/-2-7-1987. The defendants never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has been persistently demanding the defendants 1 to 4 for execution of regular sale deed as legal heirs of the deceased M.Thimmappa grandfather of D1, D2 and D4. D3 is the mother of

D4. But they have been avoiding to execution of sale deed. The plaintiff has also hold panchayat in the month of April 2011 calling upon D3 and D4. The plaintiff in OS 73/2011 D-6 has also filed a petition in IA 133/2011 for grant of

Temporary Injunction and obtained an exparte order and did not got ready for enquiry. The plaintiff has also got issued legal notice to the defendants 3 4 to 6 on 20-8-2011 after having received the intimation they filed the suit in

OS 73/2011 against the plaintiff and other. The gift deed executed by D-4 in

favour of D-5 and in turn, D-5 executed nominal sale deed in favour of D-6 are totally sham, nominal and the same are not binding on the plaintiff.

Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale.

2)Defendants 1 to 5 called absent and set-exparte.

3) Arguments heard.:-

4) In order to prove the plaintiff case plaintiff examined as PW.1. His chief affidavit is filed he is examined as PW.1. Witness admitted his signature.

Ex.A1 is the sale agreement dated 2-7-1987. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 73/2011. Ex.A3 is certified copy of the petition in

I.A.No.133/2011 in OS No.73/2011. Ex.A4 Commissioner’s report with plan in

OS No.73/2011.Ex.A5 is the office copy of the legal notice dt/- 20-8-2011.

5) On perusal of Ex.A1, the plaintiff is not filed the suit within three years as per Limitation Act. There is no proper acknowledgment about the signature as per Section 19 of Limitation Act. As per Article 54 of Limitation, suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff is not filed the suit within three years. As per Section 54, unless there is stipulation of time for performance of sale agreement, time is not always essence of contract. It may be taken to be fairly settled that wherever the plaintiff has not committed such delay as would cause prejudice to the defendant or wherever there has been no such delay as would cause prejudice to the defendant or wherever there has been no such delay as would amount to waiver or acquiescence by the plaintiff, in respect of his right to enforce specific performance, the Court ill not refuse to grant a decree merely on the ground of laches or delay. Mere delay in bringing the suit will not disentitle a person to a decree for specific performance, but complete inaction for a long time without adequate explanation would bar the plaintiff from getting specific performance. Thus, if the executant of a document has made over the document duly executed by 5 him to the buyer it is for the buyer to take steps for the registration of the document within the time provided by the law for such registration. If he takes steps and fails he may sue for specific performance, but if he sits tight and takes no steps open to him to be taken in law and waits for no reason (in the instance case for about 12 months) he cannot get specific performance.

6) In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed on my dictation to stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 25th day of April, 2017.

Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda.

Appendix of evidence.

Plaintiffs:Defendant:

P.w.1: T.Narasimhulu NIL

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A1:Sale Agreement dated 2-07-1987 executed by M.Thimmappa s/o C.Ramaiah in favour of T.Naganna s/o T.C.Rangamppa (Stamp duty and penalty paid to the District Registrar, Anantapuramu on 23-3-2016.)

Ex.A2/Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No. 73/2011.

Ex.A3/Certified copy of the petition in I.A.No.133/2011 in OS No.73/2011.

Ex.A4 Commissioner’s report with plan in OS No.73/2011. Ex.A5 is the office copy of the legal notice dt/- 20-8-2011.

Exhibits marked for defendant -NIL-

Jr.C.J

CC/45/2017 Acquitted

Harijana Rudramma vs Dasannagari Anand

26 Apr 2017

In the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate: Uravakonda

Present: Kum. Sai Kumari A, Judl First Class Magistrate, Uravakonda.

Wednesday, the 26th day of APRIL, 2017

C.C.No.45 of 2017 Between:

State Sub-Inspector of Police,

Uravakonda P.S .. Complainant

And

1.D.Anand, age 26 years, S/o Dasanna, resident of Pedda Kowkuntla Village, Uravakonda Mandal. 2.Yere Umakanth @ Rajanianth, age 26 years s/o Rangappa, r/o P.K.Kothakota village,

Vajrakarurur mandal .. Accused

This case is coming on 25-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P for the state and of Sri. T.Jayaraju, advocate for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

Case is U/sec. 354 A(2) and 506-II IPC.

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Uravakonda PS has laid charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Sections 354 A (2) and 506-II IPC.

2) PW1 Harijana Rudramma is a complainant in this case, and gave a complaint to Sub Inspector of Police, Uravakonda Police Station. Basing on the complaint the Sub Inspector of Police, Uravakonda registered a case as in Cr. No. 123 of 21/2017 U/Secs 354-A (2) and 506-II IPC, after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet, as per charge sheet brief facts are as follows:

On 18-12-2016 at about 3-30 PM A1 and A2 phoned to LW3 H.Nagesh mobile phone from phone numbers 1.7996767977 and 2.7996767975 and asked PW1. Then LW3 H.Nagesh given the phone to PW1 to talk them, at the time A1 and A2 talked with PW1 and replied that ‘You are their darling you spend one hour time from them and satisfy on sexual intercourse, as you are beauty’ and harassed in the phone. PW1 replied to the accused that she will 2 inform the same to her husband, but the accused replied and threatened

PW1 that if she informs the same to others they will see her end and abused her in vulgar language with Criminal Intimidation. PW1 informed the same to her parents, mentally suffered and crying. PWs 1 and 2 and others identified

A1 and A2 who are talked with PW1 in the mobile phone. A1 and A2 continued their demands and harassments to PW1 through phone. Due to sexual harassment of the accused through phone with criminal intimidation.

PWs 1 and 2 are came to Uravakonda PS on 13.2.2017 and PW1 gave a report about the occurrence against the accused. 3)On the complaint of

PW.1 Rudramma, LW6 S.Nagesh Babu, S.I of Police, Uravakonda registered the case as in Cr. No.21 of 2017 U/Sec. 354 A(2) and 506-II IPC of

Uravakonda PS on 13-12-2017 and investigated into this case. On 13-2-2017

LW6 arrested the accused and released them on bail after taking sufficient sureties.

4) This court taken the cognizance of offence against accused Under sections 354 A(2) and 506-II IPC. On appearance of accused copies furnished

U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5)Accused are examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C read over and explained in

Telugu pleaded not guilty, claimed to be tried for the offence U/secs 354 A(2) and 506-II IPC. Charges are framed U/Secs. 354 A (2) and 506-II IPC.

6)On behalf of prosecution PW.1 to PW.3 are examined and marked as

Exs.P1 to P4. LW.3 H.Nagesh, LW5 B.Yerriswamy and LW6 Nagesh Babu SI of

Police are given by the APP. Best reasons known to the prosecution for given up of the above said witness. On report of APP prosecution evidence is closed.

7) As 313 Cr.P.C examination of accused is dispensed with, there are no incriminating circumstances as deposed by prosecution witnesses against accused. Accused reported no defence evidence. Hence Defence evidence is closed

8)Arguments heard on both side:

9)Points for determination:

3 1)Whether accused 1 and 2 are assault or use of criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty to PW.1 H.Rudramma?

2) Whether accused 1 and 2 are Criminal Intimidation against PW1 H. Rudramma?

3) Whether prosecution proved a case beyond all reasonable doubt U/Secs. 354 A (2) and 506-II IPC ?

10) In order to prove the prosecution case complainant examined as

PW1. She deposed that she does not know the accused. PW2 is her younger co-sister. Her daughter name is Rajeswari and she married A1 younger brother Ravi Kumar. There are disputes arose between Rajeswari and Ravi

Kumar for the settlement of disputes. She along with PW2 approached to the police for settlement. For that settlement Uravakonda police obtained her signature in a blank paper for settlement. She can identify her signature.

Witness identify her signature in the complaint. Police examined her. She is not support to the prosecution version, she is turned hostile.Ex.P1 is signature of PW1 in the statement recorded by the police. Her Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P2.

11) As per prosecution version eye witness examined as PW2. She deposed that she does not know the accused and she does not know the case facts. The Police did not examine her. She is not support to the prosecution case, she was turned hostile. Her statement U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C marked as Ex.P3.

12) As per prosecution version husband of PW1 examined as PW.3.

He deposed that he does not know the accused in this case and he does not know the case facts. The Police did not examine him. He is not support to the prosecution case, He was turned hostile. His statement U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C marked as Ex.P4.

13) As per prosecution version PW.1 is the complainant and eye witnesses examined as PWs.2 and 3. but they are not deposed anything about abusing PW1 through phone numbers to PW.1 and also Criminal

Intimidation against PW1 on the date of occurrence. PW.1 to PW.3 are not support to the prosecution case they are turned hostile except their 4 statements. None of documents are marked for prosecution. Exs.P2 to P4 161 Cr.P.C. statements are marked. Ex.P1 is signature of PW1.

14) As per above discussion the prosecution fails to prove

Ingredients of Secs. 354-A (2) and 506 (II) of IPC.

15) In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence U/Sec.

354-A (2) and 506 (II) of IPC. Accordingly, accused are acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence U/secs. 354-A (2) and 506 (II) of IPC. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force up to 6 months.

Typed on my dictation to Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of APRIL, 2017.

Judl.I Class Magistrate, Uravakonda.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for:

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: H.Rudramma (Complainant person) -Nil- PW.2: H.Rudramma PW.3: K.Ramesh

Exhibits marked for the prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 in statement recorded by police. Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1 Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2 Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3

Exhibits marked for the Defence: -Nil- Mos marked: -

NIL

J.F.C.M.

EP/1/2017

Kuruve Gulla Anjinappa vs Kuruva pedda Venkata swamy

26 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:URAVAKONDA

PRESENT: Kum. Sai Kumari. A, Junior Civil Judge: Uravakonda

E.P. No. 1 of 2017 in OS.11 of 2010

Wednesday, the 26th day of APRIL, 2017

Between:

Kuruva Gulla Anjinappa …Petitioner/DHr

AND

K.P.Vannurswamy ...Respondent/JDr

This case coming on 24-4-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Rajasekhar Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri.

Y.Lakshminarayana Reddy, Advocate for the respondent, upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court made the following:

ORDER

Brief facts of Petitioner:-

1) Heard on petition. Petition filed U/Or 21 Rules 22,54,64 and 66 of

C.P.C for prays to order Rule 22 notice then order for attachment of the E.P.

schedule property and direct the sale of E.P. schedule mentioned property in public auction after due process and order to pay the sale amount to the petitioner herein for realization of E.P. amount.

2) He is the petitioner herein and Decree Holder in the above E.P. He has filed the above E.P. against the respondent-Judgment Debtor for realization of decretal amount. This court to pass a decree in favour of him and against the respondent on 2-9-2010 for a sum of Rs.62,500/- with costs and interest.

He is filing the above E.P. for attachment of E.P. schedule property. The petition schedule property is an extent of 8-00 cts out of Ac.24.14 in

Sy.No.161-B. The boundaries are: East:Land of Ranganayakulu in same survey number. West: Land of Sunil in same Sy.No. North:Rastha and on southland of V.Venkatareddy. DHrs approximate value Rs.90,000/- per acre.

The respondent is very well aware of the passing of decree, but till date the respondent is not coming forward to discharge the amount due under the 2 decree. The J.Dr. has got sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount. He has got sufficient means to pay the decretal amount, but he is intentionally evading the payment.

3) Counter filed by the respondent counsel denied all allegations and further contended that he is the only agriculturist and has no any other sources of income and has no other profession. Due to failure of rains he is not in a position to bear all expenses of family members. The respondent took money from petitioner/DHr at three times and executed three promotes in favour of him. Even after execution of said three promotes both of the parties i.e,, execution of said three promotes both of the parties. i.e., borrower and creditor entered into an agreement on 30-6-2008 that he executed three promotes for Rs.1,59,000/- towards pronote debt with interest and agreed to repay Rs.59,000/- towards pronote debt with interest within the period that ends on 30-7-2008 and if he fails to do so, the creditor i.e., K.Gulla Anjinappa has to enter into the land of borrower that was purchased by him from one M.Naren and to enjoy the fruits of the and and for that K.Vannurappa @ Vannurswamy would not take steps against

K.G.Anjinappa, the creditor. The said unregistered and unstamped agreement was witnessed by Ramanna, sunkanna and M.Ramachandra. But subsequently through he entered into the land he filed suits with a malafide intention to gain unlawfully. So, a panchayat was held in the presence of said attestors of unregistered and unstamped agreement dated 30-6-2008 and in the said panchayat the petitioner/DHr agreed to withdrawn the cases and even though if the suits decreed he would not go to claim and he can execute the withdrawals whenever required. While it was so, the creditor again started to demand for amounts claiming loss of interest. So, the respondent decided to pay the amount and to claim the land rent from creditor. So on 19-2-2012 the debtor P.Vannurswamy @ Vannurappa paid

Rs.70,000/- only in cash to the advocate of D.Hr and he gave a receipt for 3 the amount in adjustment of the amount towards E.P.No.44/2011 in OS 59/2010. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4) The respondent did not take any objections about Rule 22 notice.

He stated in the counter prior to the suit. But E.P. was filed after decree of the suit, the respondent did not go behind decree. It is the E.P. As per the above discussion, E.P. is allowed for Rule 22 notice. Issue Rule 54 notice to the J.Dr. on payment of process and attachment of petition schedule property. Call on 3-5-2017.

Typed on my dictation to Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of April, 2017.

Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda.

Appendix of evidence, Witnesses examined for:-

Petitioner: Respondent:

-NIL- -NIL-

Documents Marked for Petitioner:

-Nil-

Documents Marked for Respondent: -Nil-

Jr.C.J.

Execution Petition was filed for arrest of the J.Dr. for non-payment of decretal amount. E.P. is filed about two years. This court issued notice to the JDr, because of E.P. is filed more than two years. Notice was served on the J.Dr.

He has filed the counter about the contention only regarding means of the petitioner. But at this stage, D.Hr. also came to the court and adduce evidence about the J.Dr. There is no contention about the filing of E.P. more than two years. Hence the petition is allowed.

8) In the result, the petition is allowed. Issue Rule 37 Notice to the J.Dr.

on payment of process. Call on 1-3-2017.

Typed on my dictation to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 03rd day of March, 2017.

Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda.

Appendix of evidence, Witnesses examined for:-

Petitioner: Respondent:

P.W.1:K.Subramanyam RW1:D.S.Fakruddin.

Documents Marked for Petitioner:

-Nil-

Documents Marked for Respondent: -Nil-

Jr.C.J.

PRC/5/2017

k.Balaramudu Vajrakarur P.S vs Vskotte kalyani

01 May 2017

Order Record 1,839 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/30/2016	Kattubadi Subramanyam vs Vadde Chiranjeevi	04 May 2017	Order	—
CC/59/2017	SHo Vidapanakal ps Shaik Masthan vali vs Gowri nSankar saket	04 May 2017	Order	—
EP/9/2016	N.Raghupathi Naidu vs Burujula Venkatesu alias B.Venkatesulu	02 May 2017	Order	—
CC/57/2017	Pasakam siva prasad vs Avula Sreenivasulu	01 May 2017	Order	—
PRC/4/2017	V.Budagajangala Manju of uravakonda P.S vs Kadamanchi budagajangala Anjanaiah	01 May 2017	Order	—
PRC/5/2017	k.Balaramudu Vajrakarur P.S vs Vskotte kalyani	01 May 2017	Judgment	—
EP/1/2017	Kuruve Gulla Anjinappa vs Kuruva pedda Venkata swamy	26 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/14/2016	B.Ranganna vs K.Yerriswamy	26 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/76/2016	Bandhook Suseelamma alias sujatha vs Boggu sunkappa	26 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CC/45/2017	Harijana Rudramma vs Dasannagari Anand	26 Apr 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/167/2016	Payyavula Sreenivasulu 57 years, vs K.Ramachandra Murthy	26 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/31/2014	T. Narasimhulu, Age 52 yrs vs Malapati Sreenivasulu, AGe 48 yrs	25 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/74/2016	M.Ramanjaneyulu vs K.Kristappa	25 Apr 2017	Order	—
CC/1/2017	Uravakonda PS vs R.V. Siva Chandra Reddy 32 years,	25 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/99/2016	K.Purushotam vs Kuruva Malli karjuna	24 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/109/2015	Sallapuram Boya Sunkamma vs Vs1. Masthanakkagari Boya Jayamma	24 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/10/2016	The Branch Manager vs Hari Prasad	21 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/105/2015	Muthuluru Rajavardhana vs Vs1. Kandyala Narayanaswamy	21 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/73/2011	Chimbili Sharada, Age 33 yrs vs Thammeneni Raghi, Age 38 yrs	20 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/103/2016	Muthuluru Sivaramudu vs Muthuluru Narasimhulu	20 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CC/195/2016	Uravakonda PS vs Boya Hareesh 20 years,	19 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/32/2016	B.Hanumantha Reddy vs J.Buggaiahnaidu	08 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/47/2012	K.M. Ramanjaneyulu Reddy, Age 72 yrs vs C. Bala Alias C. Bhupal , Age 40 yrs	08 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/57/1990	R.Krishna Murthy vs Kapumallela Ramanjaneyulu	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
CC/24/2017	Uravakonda PS vs Pothireddygari Jagan MohanReddy 52 years,	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
CC/42/2017	Kuraba Adamma vs Kamma narra jayachandra	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
CC/44/2017	Tailor Rafi@ Mahammad rafi vs Kuruba Nagabhushana @ Tanna	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
CC/50/2017	M.Anilkumar vs Bontha Sjatha Bai	08 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CC/51/2017	B.Devamma, Vidapanakal PS vs Shaik Basha	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
CC/53/2017	Meerapali Mallikarjuna VIDAPANAKAL PS vs Sreeyapu Reddy Sreenivasulu Reddy	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
CC/54/2017	State represented by the Proh and Excise Sub-inspector, Proh and Excise station, Uravakonda vs Valmiki Linganna	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
CC/55/2017	State represented by the Proh and Excise Sub-inspector, Proh and Excise station, Uravakonda vs Bitragunta Mallikarjuna	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
MC/9/2016	Smt. Matam Gowramma 23 years, vs Matam Omkara Swamy 26 years,	08 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
EP/39/2015	G.Venkatanaidu vs G.Ramalingappa	04 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/5/2014	Manchala Eswara Reddy, Age 62 yrs vs Alukuri Chandara, Age 45 yrs	31 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/101/2016	M.T. Venkateswara Raju vs Jadhava Sekhar	30 Mar 2017	Decree	—
OS/101/2016	M.T. Venkateswara Raju vs Jadhava Sekhar	30 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/160/2016	Vajrakarur PS vs Shaik Motta Hussain Sab 76 years,	27 Mar 2017	Order	—
CC/163/2016	Uravakonda PS vs Karthikeya Ramanna 40 years,	27 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/85/2016	K.Ramacharlu vs Vadde Yerriswamy	24 Mar 2017	Decree	—
CC/46/2017	Boya Prasad vs Harijana Gulananappa	24 Mar 2017	Order	—
CC/192/2016	Palthuru PS vs Bojja Reddy 23 years,	24 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
PRC/3/2017	m.Radhiaka vs Vsmuchu kota kiran kumar	24 Mar 2017	Order	—
CC/41/2017	Bonala Krishna Murthy vs Kuruba Umapathi	20 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/66/2016	Koka Manohar vs K.Dasthagiraiah	17 Mar 2017	Decree	—
OS/76/2011	J. Sumangalamma, Age 54 yrs vs J. Sivarama Reddy, Age 60 yrs	17 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/134/2016	Uravakonda PS vs Harijana Nagabhushanam 22 years,	16 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/159/2016	Vajrakarur PS vs Kondajogula Ramesh 23 years,	15 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/174/2016	Uravakonda PS vs Mood Sunke Naik 28 years,	15 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/162/2016	Vajrakarur PS vs Korra Devla Naik 53 years,	14 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
EP/14/2015	Smt G.Venkatalakshmi vs J. Ramachandrappa	10 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/63/2015	Thammineni Venakatanarayana vs Thammineni Lakshminarayana	07 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/63/2015	Thammineni Venakatanarayana vs Thammineni Lakshminarayana	07 Mar 2017	Decree	—
OS/76/2012	Kuruba Basappa, Age 50 yrs vs K. Sunkanna, Age 61 yrs	07 Mar 2017	Decree	—
OS/76/2012	Kuruba Basappa, Age 50 yrs vs K. Sunkanna, Age 61 yrs	07 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/75/2016	Food Safety Officer, Anantapuramu vs Patil Doddanna Gowd, 50 years,	07 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/199/2016	Vajrakaruru PS vs Ramavath Gobriya Naik 40 years	07 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
EP/23/2016	Valmiki Lalappa vs Mundabanda Hanumanthu	03 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/30/2014	K.Vasudeva Rao vs Gudi Bandaiah	03 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/31/2016	M.T. Venkateswara Raju vs T.Venkat esulu	03 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/21/2011	Nettekanti Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Guntakal vs T. Sanjeevarayudu,	02 Mar 2017	Order	—
CC/7/2017	Uravakonda PS vs Kambadur Karri Sunkanna 34 years,	02 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
EP/15/2015	M.B.Narasimhulu vs Vs1. M.Venkatesulu	01 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/27/2016	P.Prabhakar vs Addala Jaffar	01 Mar 2017	Order	—
CC/12/2017	Palthuru PS vs Chalaman Ramudu 40 years,	01 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/189/2016	Vajrakarur PS vs Mamidi Kayala Ravi 34 years,	28 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
MC/5/2016	Ediga Nallamma 51 years, vs Ediga Gopal 56 years,	28 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/77/2015	Bavigadda Anjineya vs Bavigadda Ramanna	27 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/88/2016	Kuraba lakshamma vs Jakkala Sreenivasulu	27 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/88/2016	Kuraba lakshamma vs Jakkala Sreenivasulu	27 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/112/2016	Vajrakarur PS vs Kora Savithri Bai 55 years,	27 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/39/2014	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Gadekar Branch vs Vaduguri Lakshmi, Age 40 yrs	22 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/64/2016	B.Parvathamma vs N.Hanumanthappa	22 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/2/2017	Uravakonda PS vs Teneti Vishwanath Reddy 23 years,	22 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
PRC/1/2017	Vidapanakal PS vs Mala Kumar 24 years,	22 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/10/2017	ms sri varalakshmi traders Uravakonda vs Vsbheema cements ltd.regd.office at 6-3-652 A flat	21 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/193/2016	Palthuru PS vs Kaluvagadda Nagaraju 40 years,	21 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/205/2015	B.Ranganna vs Bheema Cements Hyderabad Represented by Its Chairm	21 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/98/2016	Bobburu Thimmappa vs T.Muralidhar	20 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/98/2016	Bobburu Thimmappa vs T.Muralidhar	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
EP/11/2016	The Branch Manager vs K.Venkatesulu	17 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/30/2016	C.Rangaswamy vs Rayampuram Gopal	16 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/30/2016	C.Rangaswamy vs Rayampuram Gopal	16 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/93/2016	S.Imam sab vs K.Sivalingappa	16 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/93/2016	S.Imam sab vs K.Sivalingappa	16 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/94/2016	S.Imam sab vs K.Sivalingappa	16 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/94/2016	S.Imam sab vs K.Sivalingappa	16 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/25/2014	Sree Vishnu Finance Uravakonda vs M.Venkatesulu	14 Feb 2017	Order	—
EP/42/2014	Bukkitla Mallikarjuna vs C.Parvathappa alias Chennannagari Parvathappa	14 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/54/2016	Boya Yallakkagari Lalemma vs Boggula Fakruddin Sab	11 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/56/2016	Pinjari Vannuramma vs Boggula Fakruddin Sab	11 Feb 2017	Order	—
CC/14/2017	Vajrakarur PS vs Vadithya Sunke Naik 55 years,	11 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/16/2017	Vajrakarur PS vs Ramavat Ramla Naik Alias Lakshma Naik 35 years,	11 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/19/2017	Uravakonda PS vs Honnur Sharmas Vali 26 years,	11 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/25/2017	Uravakonda Excise PS vs Y Venkatesulu 38 years,	11 Feb 2017	Order	—
CC/26/2017	Uravakonda Excise PS vs Gajula Prasad 35 years,	11 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/27/2017	Uravakonda Excise PS vs Chakali Rudraiah 26 years,	11 Feb 2017	Order	—
CC/28/2017	Uravakonda Excise PS vs Sugali Chiranjeevi Naik35 years,	11 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/29/2017	Uravakonda Excise PS vs Boya Ragulapati Ramanji 32 years,	11 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/30/2017	Uravakonda Excise PS vs P.Umapathy 28 years,	11 Feb 2017	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 1,839 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2017		6
Apr 2017		28
Mar 2017		34
Feb 2017		60
Jan 2017		36
Dec 2016		34
Nov 2016		46
Oct 2016		28
Sep 2016		54
Aug 2016		46
Jul 2016		52
Jun 2016		25

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Kum. A. Sai Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda handled?

Kum. A. Sai Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda has handled 1868 court orders since 2013 at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Uravakonda (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 43 orders per month.

What types of cases does Kum. A. Sai Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda hear?

Based on available records, Kum. A. Sai Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Uravakonda (Taluka).

Where is Kum. A. Sai Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda currently posted?

Kum. A. Sai Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda is posted as Junior Civil Judge at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Uravakonda (Taluka), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Kum. A. Sai Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Kum. A. Sai Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Kum. A. Sai Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda dispose cases?

Kum. A. Sai Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda disposes approximately 43 cases per month, based on 1868 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Uravakonda (Taluka).

Since when is Kum. A. Sai Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda serving?

Kum. A. Sai Kumari, Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda has been serving at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Uravakonda (Taluka) since 2013.

Case Types

CC 57%

OS 26%

EP 11%

PRC 3%

MC 2%

OP 0%

LPC 0%

STC 0%

Posting History

Sep 2013 — May 2017

Junior Civil Judge · 1,868 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 1

Other Judges at this Court

D.Durga Kalyani

Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda

0 orders

← View all judges at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Uravakonda (Taluka)