Smt.A.Sreedevi

Senior Civil Judge

Kalwakurthy, SCJ Court Complex · Nagarkurnool · Telangana

Smt.A.Sreedevi, Senior Civil Judge, is posted at Kalwakurthy, SCJ Court Complex, Nagarkurnool, Telangana, India. 441 court orders on record since 2023. 17 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, H, SC cases.

441

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/51/2024

Eslavath Panuku S/o Denya vs Ratlavath Chandru Ramchandru S/o Late Ramsingh

10 Dec 2025

1 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALWAKURTHY.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of December, 2025.

Present:-Smt.A.Sreedevi,

Senior Civil Judge,

Kalwakurthy.

OS.NO.51 /2024 (Old OS.NO.67 of 2015)

Between:

1. Eslavath Panuku W/o Denya, Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Household,

2. Eslavath Sali W/o Shankar, Age: 35 years, Housewife, Both R/o Allam Thotabai Tanda H/o Pothepally village, Veldanda Mandal.

...Plaintiffs

AND

1. Ratlavath Chandru @ Ramchandru S/o Late Ramsingh, Age:72 yrs, R/o Kalyanavagu Tanda, Bollampally village, Veldanda Mandal.

2. Eslavath Nanku W/o Devya, Age: 45 years, R/o H.No.12-125, SR Nagar, plot No.12 Almasguda, Badangpet (V) Saroor Nagar Mandal, R.R. District.

3. Sabavath Santha W/o Walya, Age: 40 years, Housewife,

4. Sabavath Jija W/o Venkataiah, Age: 38 years, Housewife, No.3 & 4 R/o Vittaipally village, Amangal mandal.

5. Varthyavath Ambabai W/o Chandra Shekar, Age: 32 years, Housewife, R/o Balaji Rice Mill, Veldanda village and mandal.

6. Varthyavath Sharada W/o Ramesh, Age: 28 years, Housewife, R/o Pllytanda H/o Arkapally village, Madgul Maneql.

7. Sabhavath Valya S/o Ghansi Ram, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,

8. Sabhavath Harish Babu, S/o Valya, Age: 32 years, Occ: Private employee,

9. Sabhavath Giri Babu, S/o Valya, Age: 29 years, Occ: Private employee, All permanent R/o 2-44, Vittaypally village of Amangal mandal R.R.District present R/o H.NO.11-243/1, Plot No.17, Balaji Nagar Colony, Badangpet, Balapur Mandal, R.R.District ( Amendment carried as per orders in IA.NO.02/2025 dt.31.01.2025 the above the defendants No.7 to 9 were added). …Defendants.

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 10-12-2025 in the presence ofSri.S.Bhaskar ReddyCounsel for plaintiffs;

Sri.G.Venkat Goud for defendants and upon hearing and on perusal of 2 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024 the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed for partition of the suit schedule lands into 8 equal shares and allotment of 2/8th share to the plaintiffs by metes and bounds and possession of the same by delivering to the plaintiffs.

2.Initially the suit is filed before Junior civil Judge court and thereafter it was transferred to this court vide proceedings of Hon’ble Prl.District

Court in Dis.NO.2329/2024 dt.20.06.2024 in ROC.NO.7059/OP cell 2024 dt.24.10.2024 and renumbered as OS.NO.51/2024.

3.The brief averments of the plaint as are follows:-

One Late.Rathlavath Desiya was the original owner of the suit schedule A & B lands situated at Bollampally shivar and Chandrupally village respectively. The said Desiya died leaving one son namely

Rathlavath Ram singh. In Khasra pahani 1954-55 the name of Ram Singh is recorded as cultivator and in subsequent pahanies as owner. Ram Singh died leaving four sons namely Nandiya, Chandru/D1, Naniya and Rediya.

In the partition among the brothers of defendant No.1 he got suit schedule

A & B lands. The defendant No.1 has got seven daughters who are plaintiff No.1& 2 and defendants No.2 to 6.

4.The defendant No.1 became very old and unable to attend the agriculture affairs over the suit lands, at the instance of defendants No.2 to defendant No.5, the defendant No.1 donated part of the suit lands in their favor without consent of the plaintiffs. Since the suit lands are 3 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024 ancestral lands and the plaintiffs are coparceners, the consent of plaintiffs is necessary for donation of the ancestral lands in the name of other family members. The plaintiffs came to know the said fact and approached the defendant No.1 to ascertain the reasons regarding the donation of the part of the suit lands excluding the plaintiffs. Then the defendant No.1 did not admit the execution of the gift deed and the said gift deed from defendant No.1 is obtained by fraud. The plaintiffs in order to avoid future complications, demanded for partition of the suit lands into 8 equal shares and allot 2/8th share to the plaintiffs on 10.05.2015 but, the defendant No.1 at the instance of donees did not agree for effecting the partition of the suit lands. the suit lands are ancestral lands acquired by the great grand father of plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are coparceners, therefore they are entitled to sue for the relief of partition. Hence, by filing this suit the plaintiffs prayed this court to pass a preliminary decree for partition of the suit lands into 8 equal shares and allotment of 2/8th share to the plaintiffs by metes and bounds.

5. Written statement defendant No.1 to 6:-

By filing written statement the defendants contended that the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. They also denied that late.Rathlavath Desiya was the original owner of the suit schedule A & B lands situated at Bollampally and Chedurpally shivar. It is pleaded that

Rathlavath Ram singh and Samiya are the sons of late.Rathlavath Ram singh. They admitted that Rathlavath Ram singh died leaving four sons namely Nandya, Chandru, Naniya and Rediya. It is also admitted in the 4 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024

Written statement that the plaintiffs No.1 & 2, defendant No.2 to 6 are the daughters of defendant No.1. However, they denied that in the partition among the brothers of defendant No.1, he got suit schedule A & B land. It is pleaded that the suit schedule A land is self acquired property of defendant No.1 but, it is not ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendants and not liable for partition as claimed by the plaintiffs. The suit schedule B land is the ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendants having acquired from the Ram singh and it is liable for partition among the plaintiffs and defendants being the share holders.

6.Further, it is contended in the Written statement that defendant No.1 is absolute owner of the suit schedule A land and he gifted the said land in sy.no.169/AA and 170/AA an extent of Ac.00-27 gts and Ac.03-29 gts situated at Bollampally village in favor of defendants No.2 to 6 through regd.gift deed No.1920/2011 dt.14.03.2011 and with the consent of plaintiffs the defendant No.1 executed the said gift deed in favor of defendants No.2 to 6. Thereafter, the defendants No.2 to 6 accepted the gift deed and since then they have been in continuous possession of the suit schedule A land as an absolute owners and got mutated the same in

ROR and other Revenue Records as owners and possessors and also they were issued title deeds and pattadar passbooks. The plaintiffs also attested as witnesses in the register gift deed dt.14.03.2011 vide doc.No.1920/2011. The said fact clearly reveals that the plaintiffs are not having any share in the suit schedule A land and consented the defendant

No.1 to donate the same in favor of defendants No.2 to 6. Inspite of 5 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024 knowing about the said gift deed also the plaintiffs falsely contended that they came to know the same then approached the defendant No.1 to ascertain the reasons for executing the gift deed. Accordingly, the defendants denied that the suit schedule lands are ancestral lands acquired by the late grand father of plaintiffs. It is also contended that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties who are brothers of defendant No.1. Therefore, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of partition and allotment of shares in the suit schedule A & B lands and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

7.After gone through the pleadings of both parties the then Presiding

Officer framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession into 2/8th share in the suit schedule A & B property ?

2. Whether the suit schedule A property is self acquired property of defendant No.1 ?

3. If so to what relief ?

8.During the course of trial the plaintiff No.2 was examined as Pw1 and

Exs.A1 to A12 are marked and Pw2 ( Banavath Shankar) Pw3 (Rathlavath

Lacchiram) are examined on behalf of plaintiffs. Defendant No.5 was examined as Dw5, and defendant No.4 was examined as Dw2, defendant

No.6 was examined as Dw3, defendant No.1 was examined as Dw4 and

ExB1 to B34 are marked on behalf of defendants.

9.Heard arguments plaintiffs and defendants and perused the written arguments filed by the defendants.

6 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024

10. Issue No.1 & 2:

Since the discussion under issue No.1 & 2 is common this court is inclined to answer the both issues together under one head.

The case of the plaintiffs is that Late.Rathlavath Desiya was the

Original owner of the suit schedule A & B lands situated at Bollampally shivar and Chandrupally village respectively. The said Desiya died leaving one son namely Rathlavath Ram singh. Later, the said Rathlavath Ram singh died leaving four sons namely Nandiya, Chandru( defendant No.1),

Naniya and Rediya. In partition among the brothers of defendant No.1 got suit schedule A & B lands. The defendant No.1 has got seven daughters who are plaintiff No. 1 & 2, and defendant No.2 to 6. The defendant No.1 without consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs gifted the suit schedule A lands in favor of defendant No.2 to 5. Infact the suit schedule A land is ancestral property and the plaintiffs are coparceners. Therefore, the said gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favor of defendant No.2 to 5 is not binding on the plaintiffs because, they are having 2/8th share in suit schedule A & B properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs are constrained filed the present suit for partition of suit schedule A & B properties.

11.To substantiate their claim the plaintiff No.2 was examined as Pw1 and she reiterated the contents of the plaint in her chief affidavit and she also got marked Ex.A1 to A12.

12.Pw2 is third party (Banavath Shankar) who deposed in his chief affidavit that the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 to 5 are children of defendant No.1 and the suit schedule lands are ancestral property of 7 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024 plaintiffs and defendants and also he stated that he knows the plaintiffs and defendants and also know that they are having lands in Bollampally and Chandrupally village in the said lands the plaintiffs are having equal share with the defendants and the plaintiffs and defendants are still in joint possession of the said lands without any partition by metes and bounds.

13.Pw3 is (Rathlavath Lachiram) also third party stated in his chief affidavit that he knows the plaintiffs and defendants and they are having lands in Bollampally village and Chedurpally village and the said lands are ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants but the defendant No.1 who is father of plaintiffs and defendant No.2 to 5 executed gift deed in favor of defendant No.2 to 5 in respect of lands at Chedurpally village but the plaintiffs are having right and equal share in the said land as such the plaintiffs filed the present suit for partition of the suit schedule lands.

14.The plaintiffs filed documents under Ex.A1 to A12. Ex.A1 is certified copy of Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 showing the name of

Rathlavath Ram singh who is father of defendant No.1 and grand father of plaintiffs, defendant No.2 to 6 as pattadar of the land in sy.no.169 an exntent of Ac.05-11 gts of Bollampally village. By filing the Ex.A1 the learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the schedule A Property situated in Bollampally village is ancestral property as such the name of

Rathlavath Ram singh is showing as pattadar of the same but, the same is not self acquired property of defendant No.1 as contended in the Written statement. Admittedly, the Khasra pahani under Ex.A1 categorically 8 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024 establishes that the land in sy.no.169 situated at Bollampally village which is shown in A schedule property is ancestral property of the father of the defendant No.1 and grand father of plaintiffs, defendant No.2 to 5.

15.Ex.A2 is CC of pahani for the year 1979-80 also showing the name of

Rathlavath Ram singh ( Father of defendant No.1) as pattadar of land in sy.no.169 of Bollampally village. Ex.A3 CC of pahani for the year 1969-70 also discloses that the Rathlavath Ram singh ( Father of defendant No.1) is pattadar of the land in sy.no.169 of Bollampally village. Ex.A4 is CC of pahani for the year 1990-91 showing the names of defendant No.1 and his brothers as pattadars and possessors of the land in sy.no.169 of

Bollampally village. Ex.A5 is CC of pahani for the year 2009-10 showing the names of defendant No.1 and his brothers as pattadars and possessors of the land in sy.no.169. Ex.A6 is 1-B ROR dt.02.07.2015 (4 sheets) showing the names of defendant No.2 to 5 as pattadars of land in sy.no.169. As the defendant No.1 executed regd.gift deed in favor of defendant No.2 to 5 in respect of the land at Bollampally in sy..no.169 the names of defendant No.2 to 5 were mutated in the Revenue Record as such they were issued 1-B ROR under Ex.A6.

16.Infact as per the Ex.A1 to A5 CC of pahanies it is established that the land shown in suit A schedule property situated at Bollampally village in sy.no.169 is ancestral property but not self acquired property of the defendant No.1 alone because, the Khasra pahani which is a crucial document to show that the land in sy.no.169 of Bollampally village is ancestral property because, the said Kasra pahani categorically showing 9 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024 the name of Rathlavath Ram singh as pattadar and owner of the said land who is father of defendant No.1 and grand father of plaintiffs and defendant No.2 to 5. Therefore, the said land was partitioned among the defendant No.1 and his brothers as such their names are showing as pattadars and owners of the land in sy.no.169 as per Ex.A5 pahani for the year 2009-10.

17.Moreover, the Dw1 categorically stated in her cross examination that her father is having Ac.04-16 gts in sy.no.169/AA, 170/AA at Bollampally village and along with her father his brothers namely Rediya, Naniya and

Nandya are having lands in sy.no.169 and 170 with same extents of land having her father. The above statement of Pw1 categorically supported the case of plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 and her brothers partitioned their ancestral lands in sy.no.169 and as such they got equal shares in sy.no.169 and 170.

18.Further, this Dw2 who is defendant No. 4 also categorically admitted in her cross-examination that her father and his three brothers partitioned the lands at Chedurpally and Bollampally village and also she admitted that as per pahani for the year 1954-55/Ex.A1 her grand father Rathlavath

Ram singh was possessor of the suit land in sy.no.169. So also she categorically admitted that her parents are cultivating the lands at

Chedurpally and Bollampally villages as joint family properties. What more is required to come a conclusion that the suit schedule A property in sy.no.169 of Bollampally village is ancestral property of the father of defendant No.1 because, Dw1 & Dw2 categorically admitted that the land 10 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024 in sy.no.169 at Bollampally village was partitioned among the defendant

No.1 and his brothers.

19.Dw4 (defendant No.1) also categorically stated in his cross- examination that he has not filed any document to show that he has purchased land at Bollampally village shivar. Dw4 further stated that he along with his four brothers are having lands at Bollampally shivar and they have partitioned their lands after death of their father. The admission of Dw4 is also supporting the version of plaintiffs that the land in sy.no.169 at Bollampally village is ancestral property and after death of father of defendant No.1 he along with his brothers partitioned the same and got 4 equal shares in the said land. The said fact is categorically establishing in Ex.A5 pahani.

20.Further, Ex.A7 to A11 are pahanies for the year 1954-55, 1969-70, 1978-79, 1990-91, 1995-96 showing the name of Rathlavath Ram singh as pattadar of land at Chedurpally village in sy.no.89, thereafter the names of defendant No.1 and his brothers were mutated in respect of their shares by succession after death of their father (Rathlavath Ram singh). Ex.A12 is 1-B ROR showing the name of defendant No.1 as pattadar and owner of the land in sy.no.89 situated at Chedurpally village which is shown as schedule B property in the plaint. Since there is no dispute regarding the schedule B property there is no need to discuss regarding the said property because, the defendants No.1 to 6 categorically admitted in the written statement that the suit schedule B land is an ancestral land of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 6 having acquired from late.Ram singh 11 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024 and also it is liable for partition among the plaintiffs and defendant N.1 to 6 being the share holders. Therefore, it can be said that the schedule B property is ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants because, they have admitted about the same in their written statement as such there is no need to discuss about the said property.

21.The defendant No.1 to 6 vehemently contended in the Written statement that the schedule A property is self acquired property of defendant No.1 as he purchased the same and being absolute owner of the suit schedule A land, the defendant No.1 with consent of the plaintiff

No.1 & 2 gifted the suit schedule A land in sy.no.169 and 170 situated at

Bollampally village to the defendant No.2 to 6 through regd.gift deed

N.1920/2011 dt.14.03.2011 and delivered the possession of the said land to defendant No.2 to 6 and since the date of delivery of the possession they are in continuous possession of the suit schedule A land as an absolute owners and they got mutated their names in the Revenue

Records. However, the defendant No.1 to 6 utterly failed to prove that the suit schedule A land is self acquired property of the defendant No.1 and they have not filed any proof to show that the defendant No.1 purchased the same on his own.

22.Further, Dw1 & Dw2 categorically admitted in their cross- examination that the suit schedule A property was partitioned among the defendant No.1 and his brothers as it is ancestral property. Therefore, without any hesitation it can be said that the suit schedule A property is not absolute and exclusive property of defendant No.1 nor his self 12 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024 acquired property, as such he is not entitled to execute gift deed in favor of his daughters who are defendant No.2 to 6 because, being a coparceners of Hindu Undivided Joint Family the plaintiffs are having right and equal share over the suit schedule A & B properties. Even assuming for a moment with the consent of plaintiffs defendant No.1 executed gift deed in favor of defendant No.2 to 6 in respect of suit A schedule property also not valid because, the suit A schedule property is ancestral property as discussed by this court as such all the coparceners will have equal right and share over the ancestral properties.

23.Further,as per section 06 of Hindu succession act 1956, a daughter of Hindu male is a coparcener in her own right in the coparcenary/ ancestral property and such daughter is having equal right to claim share in the ancestral properties and she shall hold the coparcenary interest on par with the sons of such male coparcener. In this regard this court relied a Judgment which is reported in “AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3717,AIR

online 2020 SC 676 in between Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh

Sharma” in which it was held that:

(I)The provisions contain in substituted Section 6 of

Hindu succession Act 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities.

(II) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 09.09.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6 (1) as to the disposition or alienation, 13 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024 partition or testmantory disposition which had taken place

before 20th day of December, 2004.

(III) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that the father coparcener should be living as on 09.09.2005.

Not with standing that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal.

The daughters cannot be deprived of their rights of equality conferred upon them by Section 6.

24.In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case this court holds that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim the share in the suit schedule properties “A & B” in their own right being the coparceners under Section 6 Hindu

Succession Act 1996, since the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 6 and as such they are entitled for division of the suit schedule “A & B” properties in to 8 equal shares and to get one such share to each plaintiffs No.1 & 2 along with defendants No.1 to 6. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of late.Rathlavath Ram Singh and they are liable to be partitioned between the plaintiffs and defendant

No.1 to 6 and also they are entitled for 1/8th share each in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favor of 14 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024 plaintiffs.

25. Issue No.3:-

In view of the findings on issue No.1 & 2 this court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to the partition of the suit schedule A & B properties of 2/8th share to the plaintiffs by metes and bounds.

26. In the result, the suit is decreed passing preliminary decree for partition of suit schedule A & B properties into 8 equal shares to the plaintiffs and defendants. Accordingly 1/8th share each is allotted in favor of plaintiffs No.1 & 2 and defendants No.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, and 1/8th share is allotted to the D7 to D9 (Defendants No.7 to 9 are LRS of defendant No.3) in respect of suit schedule A & B properties. In view of the relationship between the parties there is no order as to costs.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of December, 2025).

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KALWAKURTHY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS: PW1: Smt.Eslavath Sali.DW1: Smt.Varthyavath Ambabai.

PW2: Banavath Shankar.DW2: Sabavath Jija.

PW3: Rathlavath Lachiram.DW3: Vadthyavath Sharadha.

DW4: Rathlavath Chandru.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55.

15 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024

Ex.A2: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1979-80.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1969-70.

Ex.A4: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-91.

Ex.A5: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-10.

Ex.A6: CC of ROR (6 pages).

NOTE:- Ex.A1 to A6 are pertaining to Bollampally village of Veldanda

Mandal.

Ex.A7: Certified copy of Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55.

Ex.A8: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1969-70.

Ex.A9: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1978-79.

Ex.A10: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-91.

Ex.A11: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-96.

Ex.A12: CC of ROR ( 1 page).

NOTE:- Ex.A7 to A12 are pertaining to Chedurvalli village of Veldanda

Mandal.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1: Original Gift Deed 1920 of 2011, dt.14.03.2011.

Ex.B2: MRO Proceedings vide A/119/2012, dt.12.01.2012.

Ex.B3: CC of pahani to the year 1421 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.169/A/2 on the name of Defendant No.2 i.e., Islavath Nanku Bhai.

Ex.B4: CC of pahani to the year 1421 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.170/AA on the name of Defendant No.2 i.e., Islavath Nanku Bhai.

Ex.B5: CC of pahani to the year 1422 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.169/A/2 on 16 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024 the name of Defendant No.2 i.e., Islavath Nanku Bhai.

Ex.B6: CC of pahani to the year 1422 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.170/AA on the name of Defendant No.2 i.e., Islavath Nanku Bhai.

Ex.B7: CC of pahani to the year 1423 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.169/A/2 on the name of Defendant No.2 i.e., Islavath Nanku Bhai.

Ex.B8: CC of pahani to the year 1423 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.170/AA on the name of Defendant No.2 i.e., Islavath Nanku Bhai.

Ex.B9: CC of pahani to the year 1424 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.169/A/2 on the name of Defendant No.2 i.e., Islavath Nanku Bhai.

Ex.B10: CC of pahani to the year 1424 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.170/AA on the name of Defendant No.2 i.e., Islavath Nanku Bhai.

Ex.B11: CC of pahani to the year 1421 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.169/A/2 on the name of Defendant No.4 i.e., Sabavath Jija.

Ex.B12: CC of pahani to the year 1421 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.170/AA on the name of Defendant No.4 ie., Sabavath Jija.

Ex.B13: CC of pahani to the year 1422 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.169/A/2 on the name of Defendant No.4 i.e., Sabavath Jija.

Ex.B14: CC of pahani to the year 1422 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.170/AA on the name of Defendant No.4 i.e., Sabavath Jija.

Ex.B15: CC of pahani to the year 1423 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.169/A/2 on the name of Defendant No.4 i.e., Sabavath Jija.

Ex.B16: CC of pahani to the year 1423 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.170/AA on the name of Defendant No.4 i.e., Sabavath Jija.

17 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024

Ex.B17: CC of pahani to the year 1424 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.169/A/2 on the name of Defendant No.4 i.e., Sabavath Jija.

Ex.B18: CC of pahani to the year 1424 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.170/AA on the name of Defendant No.4 i.e., Sabavath Jija.

Ex.B19: CC of pahani to the year 1421 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.169/A/2 on the name of Defendant No.3 i.e., Sabavath Shantha.

Ex.B20: CC of pahani to the year 1421 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.170/AA on the name of Defendant No.3 i.e., Sabavath Shantha.

Ex.B21: CC of pahani to the year 1422 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.169/A/2 on the name of Defendant No.3 i.e., Sabavath Shantha.

Ex.B22: CC of pahani to the year 1422 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.170/AA on the name of Defendant No.3 i.e., Sabavath Shantha.

Ex.B23: CC of pahani to the year 1423 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.169/A/2 on the name of Defendant No.3 i.e., Sabavath Shantha.

Ex.B24: CC of pahani to the year 1423 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.170/AA on the name of Defendant No.3 i.e., Sabavath Shantha.

Ex.B25: CC of pahani to the year 1424 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.169/A/2 on the name of Defendant No.3 i.e., Sabavath Shantha.

Ex.B26: CC of pahani to the year 1424 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.170/AA on the name of Defendant No.3 i.e., Sabavath Shantha.

Ex.B27: CC of pahani to the year 1421 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.170/AA on the name of Defendant No.5 i.e., Varthyavath Amba Bhai.

Ex.B28: CC of pahani to the year 1422 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.170/AA 18 of 18 O.S.No.51/2024 on the name of Defendant No.5 i.e., Varthyavath Amba Bhai.

Ex.B29: CC of pahani to the year 1423 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.170/AA on the name of Defendant No.5 i.e., Varthyavath Amba Bhai.

Ex.B30: CC of pahani to the year 1424 Fasli pertaining to Sy.No.170/AA on the name of Defendant No.5 i.e., Varthyavath Amba Bhai.

Ex.B31: Original pattedar pass book issued by Tahsildar Veldanda on the name of Sabavath Shantha i.e., Defendant No.3.

Ex.B32: Original titled deed issued by the Tahsildar Veldanda on the name of Defendant No.4 i.e., Sabavath Jija.

Ex.B33: Original titled deed issued by the Tahsildar Veldanda on the name of Defendant No.5 i.e., Varthyavath Amba Bhai.

Ex.B34: Original titled deed issued by the Tahsildar Veldanda on the name of Islavath Nanku.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KALWAKURTHY.

OS/160/2024

C.Samyuthamma W/o Late Janardhan Reddy vs Bathini Rajendar Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy

15 Dec 2025

1 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALWAKURTHY.

Monday, this the 15th day of December, 2025.

Present:-Smt.A.Sreedevi,

Senior Civil Judge,

Kalwakurthy.

OS.NO.160 /2024 (Old OS.NO.233/2018)

Between:

1. C.Samyukthamma W/o Late Janardhan Reddy, aged 65 years, 2.C.Hanmanth Reddy S/o Govardhan Reddy, aged 38 years,

Both Occ: Agriculture, R/o Uppununthala Village and Mandal.

...Plaintiffs

And

Bathini Rajendar Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy, aged 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Dindi Chintapally village of Vangoor Mandal.

...Defendant

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 15-12-2025 in the presence of Sri.S.Bhaskar Reddy Counsel for plaintiffs; and

Sri.B.Amarendar counsel for defendant and upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against defendant for declaration of regd.gift deed No.1872/1999 dt.06.07.1999 in respect of land in sy.no.492 an extent of Ac.02-22 gts situated at Dindichintapally village of Vangoor

Mandal as null and void.

2.Initially the suit was registered as OS.NO.233/2018 before Junior Civil

Judge court, Kalwakurthy subsequently it was transferred to this court as

per the directions of Hon’ble District Court vide Dis.No.2329/2024 2 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024 dt.20.06.2024 vide ROC.NO.7059/OP cell by 2024 dt.24.10.2024, accordingly, New Number was given to the above suit as OS.NO.160/2024.

3.The brief averments of the plaint as are follows:-

The late husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff NO.2 are real brothers and sons of late Venkata Narsamma. The said Venkata

Narsamma got the suit schedule land in sy.no.492 an extent to Ac.04-22 gts situated at Dindichintapally village of Vangoor Mandal through a Civil

Court Decree from her parents side. The said land is self acquired land of said Venkata Narsamma. The said decree was not implemented in the

Revenue records, but she was in actual and exclusive possession of the said land an extent of Ac.04-22 gts as owner,cultivating the same personally.

4.The said Venkata Narsamma died in the year 2011 and after her death the plaintiffs and others took the possession of the suit land as her successors. As there are huge family members in the house and other family members did not show any interest to get the land transferred in their names in the revenue records, the plaintiffs alone approached the

Tahsildar in the year 2018 for grant of succession of the said land and other lands which were in the name of Venkata Narsamma. Then the

Tahsildar informed that the name of defendant is recorded as owner of

Ac.02-22 gts in the said land as per regd.gift deed. The Tahsildar furnished gift deed number and date upon which the plaintiffs approached the SRO and obtained CC of gift deed dt.10.08.2018 and came to know that the defendant by fraud obtained the said gift deed.

3 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024

5.As per the recitals of the document it is stated that the defendant is son of own brother of Venkata Narsamma, as such she donated the said land to him, infact Venkata Narsamma got sons and daughters including grand children. Therefore, the question of donating the suit land to a stranger does not arise. Moreover, the father of defendant is not own brother of Venkata Narsamma. Accordingly, the plaintiffs contended that the gift deed was created to grab the suit land and without any notice to the plaintiffs the same was implemented in the name of defendant.

Therefore, the said gift deed is declared to be as null and void.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs prayed this court to declare the gift deed

No.1872/1999 dt.06.07.1999 in respect of suit schedule land as illegal and null and void. Hence, this suit.

6.Written Statement of Defendant:-

The defendant filed written statement and contended that the suit is not maintainable. He also denied the adverse allegations pleaded by the plaintiffs against him in the plaint regarding the creation of gift deed. But he admitted that the late.Venkata Narsamma got Civil Court Decree in sy.no.492 an extent of Ac.04-22 gts and upon which she got implemented the said decree in the Revenue Records and she got the said land from her fathers side. Venkata Narsamma was daughter of Chinna Bhadraiah @

Chinna Bhadra reddy and he got five daughters and the Venkata

Narsamma is one of the daughters of Bhadra Reddy. The said Bhadra reddy had four brothers including him all together five members and they partitioned their lands. The father of defendant is Venkat Reddy who is 4 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024 son of Seetha Reddy and the said Seetha Reddy is own brother of Bhadra

Reddy. The Venkata Narsamma has got blood relation with the defendant as paternal aunt and defendant is nephew of the said Venkata Narsamma.

7.It is also admitted that after getting court decree the Venkata

Narsamma cultivated the suit land upto 2011 excluding gifted land. Prior to her death Venkata Narsamma gifted the land in sy.no.492 an extent of

Ac.02-22 gts to the defendant vide gift deed No.1872/1999 dt.06.07.1999 and also the defendant accepted the gift then the Venkata Narsamma delivered the vacant possession of the said land to the defendant and since then he has been cultivating the same. The said Venkata Narsamma never objected to implement the gift deed in the Revenue records on the name of defendant. All the family members have got knowledge that the suit land belongs to defendant as such they did not file any petition for mutation after death of the Venkata Narsamma.

8.The plaintiffs have no right to question the validity of the gift deed as the donor did not question the gift deed in her lifetime about 12 years and now the plaintiffs are questioning the gift deed with malafide intention. It is also contended that one irrigation canal is going through the suit land and Government is ready to pay compensation to the defendant who is title holder and pattadar but the plaintiffs with malafied intention filed the suit to grab the amount illegally from the defendant.

The suit is barred by limitation under article 59 of Limitation Act as she was alive upto 2011 and she did not question about the validity of gift deed in any corner during her lifetime. The plaintiffs are no way 5 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024 concerned with the gift deed and without having any right over the suit schedule land they are challenging the same after lapse of limitation period. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable on the ground of limitation and there is no cause of action to file the suit as the plaintiffs have no right over the suit land. Hence, they are not entitled to seek declaration of the gift deed as null and void. Accordingly, the defendant prayed this court to dismiss the suit with exclamatory costs.

9. Additional Written statement:-

The defendant filed Additional written statement to the amended plaint by denying newly introduced contentions in the amended plaint particularly regarding the alleged invalidity of the gift deed No.1872/1999 dt.06.07.1999. The said gift deed was lawfully executed by late. Venkata

Narsamma in favor of defendant out of her own free will, without any force, fraud, coercion or undue influence. The execution of gift deed was attested and the same was accepted by the donee ie., defendant herein.

The plaintiff filed this suit for cancellation of regd.gift deed in 2018 and after 6 years amendment petition was filed but the proposed amendments were well within the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit. Further, during her lifetime the original donor of the gift deed/Venkata Narsamma had not filed any suit against defendant who is donee for cancellation of the gift deed and the gift deed was executed in 1999 and the Venkata Narsamma was alive till 2011. Accordingly, the defendant vehemently opposed the contentions taken by the plaintiffs in the amended plaint and prayed this court dismiss the suit.

6 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024

10.After gone through the pleadings of both parties the then presiding officer framed the following issues for trial:-

Issues:-

1. Whether the regd.gift deed No.1872/1999 dt.06.07.1999 is liable to be declared as null and void ?

2. Whether the court fee paid is not sufficient ?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

4. If so, to what relief ?

Additional issues dt.24.03.2025.

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaring the regd.gift deed No.1872/1999 dt.06.07.1999 in respect of suit land in sy.no.492 an extent of Ac.02-23 gts situated at Dindichintapally village of Vangoor mandal as null and void ?

2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the gift deed ?

3. Whether the defendant has been in actual possession of the suit land without any interruption since the date of gift deed by mutating his name in the Revenue Records ?

4. To what relief ?

11.During the course of trial the plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW1 one Mamidala Muthyal Reddy who is third party to the suit was examined as Pw2 and Exs.A1 to A4 are marked on behalf of plaintiffs. The defendant was examined as Dw1 and he got marked Ex.B1 to B9 on his behalf.

12.Heard arguments of the plaintiffs and defendants.

7 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024

Issues Nos.1, Additional issue No.1 to 3.

Since the discussion under the above issues is common this court is inclined to answer the three issues together under one head.

13.The husband of first plaintiff and father of second plaintiff are real brothers and sons of Venkata Narsamma. The said Venkata Narsamma got the land in sy.no.492 an extent of Ac.04-22 gts of Dindichintapally village of Vangoor Mandal through a court decree from her father and she had been in possession of the said land till her death ie., 2011. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit land but the plaintiffs could not mutate the said land in their names as successors of the

Venkata Narsamma. In the year 2018 the plaintiffs applied for grant of succession of the said land then they came to know that out of Ac.04-22 gts in sy.no.492 Ac.02-22 gts in sy.no.492 was mutated in the name of defendant as pattadar of the same as per the registered gift deed executed in favor of defendant by the Venkata Narsamma. Then immediately the plaintiffs obtained the certified copy of gift deed

No.1872/1999 dt.06-07-1999 to file the present suit. Accordingly the plaintiffs contended that the defendant by fraud obtained the said gift deed and he is not related to the Venkata Narsamma but in the said gift deed it is mentioned that the defendant is her own brother’s son, infact the father of defendant namely Venkat Reddy is not own brother of

Venkata Narsamma.

8 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024

14.In order to prove their case the plaintiff No.1 was examined as Pw1 and she filed her chief affidavit reiterating the averments and contents pleaded in the plaint. She also got examined Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is CC of regd.gift deed No.1872/1999 dt.06.07.1999 showing that the Venkata

Narsamma executed the said gift deed in favor of defendant herein in respect of land in sy.no.492 an extent of Ac.02-22 gts. Ex.A2 is CC of pahani for the years 1992-93, 1996-97, 1999-2000 showing the names of

Mamidala Janamma and Mamidala Ram Reddy as pattadars and possessors of the land in sy.no.492 an extent of Ac.27-12 gts. Ex.A3 is

CC of Pahani for the year 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 showing the names of M.Ram Reddy as pattadar and possessor of land in sy.no.492 an extent of Ac.27-12 gts and the name of Venkata Narsamma shown as pattadar and possessor of Ac.02-00 in pahani for the year 2007-09. Ex.A4 is pahani for the year 2008-09, 2009-10 showing the name of Venkata

Narsamma as pattadar and possessor of Ac.02-00 gts in sy.no.492.

15.Admittedly, the Venkata Narsamma got the land an extent of Ac.04- 22 gts in sy.no.492 through a court decree from her father. But her name was mutated as pattadar and possessor of Ac.02-00 gts in sy.no.492 as per pahanies for the year 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 because, she executed gift deed under Ex.A1 in favor of defendant in 1999 in respect of land in sy.no.492 an extent of Ac.02-22 gts the said land was not showing in the pahanies and only Ac.02-00 gts showing that the Venkata

Narsamma is pattadar and possessor of Ac.02-00 gts land but not total 9 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024 extent of Ac.04-22 gts. Moreover, immediately after execution of gift deed in the year 1999 the defendant got mutated his name by implementing the gift deed before Revenue Authorities in respect of land an extent of Ac.02-22 gts in sy.no.492 due to the said reason the name of

Venkata Narsamma is showing as pattadar and possessor of land an extent of Ac.02-00 gts only in sy.no.492 as per pahanies for the year 2007-09, 2008-09, 2009-10.

16.In addition to that the Pw1 who is daughter in law of Late.Venkata

Narsamma categorically stated in her cross examination that the suit schedule property is Streedhana property of Venkata Narsamma and she got the said property through court decree an extent of Ac.04-22 gts in sy.no.492 and also Pw1 categorically stated that the total extent of land in sy.no.492 was Ac.27-12 gts. Therefore, without any hesitation this court can safely come to a conclusion that the suit schedule property is

Streedhana property of late.Venkata Narsamma and she got the same from her father through a court decree.

17.In this regard the learned counsel for the defendant contended that as the suit land is self acquired or Streedhana property of the late.Venkata

Narsamma she is having every right to transfer the said land to anyone as per her will and wish and in that connection only the Venkata Narsamma executed gift deed in favor of the defendant and same is accepted by him in 1999 and possession of the said land was also delivered in favor of defendant and since then he has been in continuous possession over the 10 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024 same by mutating his name in the Revenue records and got implemented the said gift deed before revenue authorities. The said fact is well aware to everyone in the village including the plaintiffs but, they falsely filed this suit contending that by playing fraud the defendant got executed the said regd.gift deed in his favor by the Venkata Narsamma.

18.Further, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that the said Venkata Narsamma during her lifetime did not file any suit for cancellation of gift deed till her death in 2011 if at, all the said gift deed was executed by playing fraud definitely Venkata Narsamma would have filed a suit for cancellation of gift deed but, the fact remains that no such suit was filed by the Venkata Narsamma for cancellation of gift deed during her lifetime. In this regard the Pw1 also stated in her cross examination that Venkata Narsamma has not filed any suit against defendant for cancellation of regd.gift deed or any other relief.

19.It is also categorically admitted by the Pw1 that the Venkata

Narsamma gifted Ac.02-22 gts in favor defendant. The said admission of

Pw1 is very much sufficient to come a conclusion that the plaintiffs have got knowledge about execution of gift deed by Venkata Narsamma in favor of defendant. It is also stated by the Pw1 that as per Ex.A3, Ex.A4 pahanies for the year 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 the name of Venkata

Narsamma is showing as owner and possessor of only Ac.02-00 gts in sy.no.492/5. So also, Pw1 categorically stated that they have not 11 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024 approached the Tahsil Office after death of Venkata Narsamma for mutation of her land in their favor by way of succession.

20.Admittedly, the Venkata Narsamma died in 2011 but, for the reasons best known to the plaintiffs they have not approached the Revenue Office for mutation of their names by way of succession in respect of the suit schedule land but, as per the plaintiffs they have approached the Revenue authorities in 2018 and applied for grant of succession of the suit land.

There is no convincing reason assigned by the plaintiffs in the plaint why they have not applied for grant of succession immediately after death of

Venkata Narsamma ie., in 2011 but after lapse of 7 years of death of

Venkata Narsamma the plaintiffs applied for grant of succession of the suit land in 2018, in addition to that there is no such copy of application filed to substantiate the said contention pleaded in the plaint.

21.Further, Pw1 stated in her cross examination “in the year 2019 the

Venkata Narsamma informed us that there is Ac.02-22 gts which belongs to her for cultivation and she did not execute any document to anyone”.

And in the same cross examination Pw1 deposed that “Venkata Narsamma is my mother in law and she died in 2011” in such case how the Venkata

Narsamma could inform the plaintiffs in 2019 that there is land an extent of Ac.02-22 gts which belongs to her for cultivation and she did not execute any document in favor of anyone. The said statement of Pw1 is totally false because, in 2011 itself the Venkata Narsamma died in such 12 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024 case how she can inform the plaintiffs about the suit schedule land in the year 2019.

22.Therefore, the plaintiffs setup a false plea contenting that the gift deed got executed by the defendant by playing fraud on the Venkata

Narsamma and he is not blood relative of the Venkata Narsamma but, infact the defendant is son of Venkat Reddy and the said Venkat Reddy the son of Seetha Reddy who is brother of Bhadra reddy and the said Bhadra reddy is father of Venkata Narsamma. The same was admitted by the

Pw1 in her cross examination therefore, it can be said that the defendant is having blood relation with the Venkata Narsamma. Furthermore, no one challenged the gift deed or its validity from 1999 to till filing of the present suit and admittedly the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land since the date of gift deed and his name was also mutated in the Revenue records by implementing the said gift deed. Moreover, Pw1 categorically stated in her cross examination that they have not given any Police complaint against defendant for the alleged creation of the gift deed in his favor. If at all the said gift deed is created and fabricated document as contended by the plaintiffs what prevented them to give Police complaint against the defendant but, the fact remains that no such Police complaint was given against the defendant.

23.Pw2 is third party in the suit by filing his chief affidavit reiterated the plaint averments. In the cross examination he categorically stated that 13 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024 the suit schedule property is the property of parents of Venkata

Narsamma and he has got knowledge that the Venkata Narsamma got the suit land through a court decree and she died on 19.01.2011. He also stated that he does not know about the execution of gift deed in favor of defendant by Venkata Narsamma and also about the mutation of the land in the name of defendant No.1. It is also stated by the Pw2 that they have not taken any steps to send the gift deed executed in favor of defendant No.1 by Venkata Narsamma to FSL. In this regard the learned counsel for the defendant contended that if at all, the Ex.A1 gift deed is created and false document who prevented the plaintiffs to send the same for expert opinion to know about its genuinity. However, for the reasons best known to the plaintiffs they have not taken any steps to send the said gift deed for expert opinion.

24.Further, the defendant filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the contents stated in the written statement. He also got marked Ex.B1 to

B9. Ex.B1 is registered gift deed Original document No.1872/1999 dt.06.07.1999 showing that the late. Venkata Narsamma transferred the suit land in favor of defendant by executing gift deed stating that the defendant is son of her brother and nephew to her as such out of love and affection she has executed the said gift deed in his favor in respect of suit schedule property. Upon which the defendant got mutated his name in respect of the suit schedule property by implementing the gift deed before

Revenue authorities to that effect proceedings under Ex.B2 were issued 14 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024 and also he was issued Ex.B2 to B9 which are pattadar passbook, 1-B certificate ROR, pahani, specimen copy of passbook, 1-B ROR specimen copy and specimen copy of Pahani from Bhubarathi portal.

25.All the documents under Ex.B1 to B9 clinchingly establish that the defendant is pattadar, owner and possessor of the suit schedule land.

Without having any right, title or possession over the suit schedule land, the plaintiffs falsely contended that they are owners and possessors of the suit land infact they were never in possession of the suit land subsequent to execution of gift deed by the Venkata Narsamma in favor of the defendant.

26.Further, the suit schedule property is Streedhana property of

Venkata Narsamma as such, she is having every right to transfer the said property as per her will and wish no one is having right to question about the said transactions. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the late.Venkata Narsamma with her own will and wish executed her own property in favor of the defendant under Ex.B1. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief to declare the gift deed as null and void because, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge the gift deed.

Moreover, since the date of gift deed the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land by mutating his name in the

Revenue records.

15 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024

27. Issue No.2:-

The court fee paid by the plaintiffs is sufficient, accordingly this issue is answered in favor of plaintiffs.

28. Issue No.3:-

Admittedly, as discussed under issue No.1 the gift deed under Ex.B1 was executed by the Venkata Narsamma in favor of defendant on 06.07.1999. Further, Pw1 who is plaintiff No.1 also categorically admitted that the Venkata Narsamma gifted the suit land an extent of Ac.02-22 gts in favor of defendant and she has not filed any suit against the defendant for cancellation of the said gift deed. The above admission of Pw1 is showing that plaintiffs have got know about the gift deed way back in 1999 but, they have not filed any suit for cancellation of the said gift deed through late.Venkata Narsamma, at least they have not given any Police complaint against defendant for execution of the gift deed in his favor.

Except bald allegations against the defendant the plaintiffs could not prove that the gift deed brought into existence by the defendant by playing fraud. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation because, it was filed in 2018 but the gift deed under Ex.B1 was executed in the year 1999.

Inspite of having knowledge about the said gift deed executed in the year 1999 the plaintiffs have not challenged the same within prescribed period of limitation as such the suit is badly barred by limitation. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

16 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024

29. Issue No.4:-

In view of the findings given under issue No.1 & 3 and additional issue No.1 to 3, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of declaring the registered gift deed No.1872/1999 dt.06.07.1999 as null and void as they utterly failed to prove that the said gift deed was obtained by the defendants from the Late.Venkata

Narsamma by playing fraud. Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

30.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of December, 2025).

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KALWAKURTHY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: C.Samyukthamma.DW1: Bathini Rajendar Reddy.

PW2: Mamidala Muthyal Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1: CC of Registered gift deed No.1872/1999, dt.06.07.1999.

Ex.A2: CC of pahani for the year 1992-93.

Ex.A3: CC of pahani for the year 2002-03.

Ex.A4: CC of pahani for the year 2008-09.

17 of 17 O.S.NO.160/2024

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1: Registered gift deed original document No.1872/1999, dt.06.07.1999.

Ex.B2: Proceedings vide file No.ROR B/1052/2000, dt.23.05.2000 and the MRO issued original.

Ex.B3: Old pattadar passbook original.

Ex.B4: Form I-B certificate original.

Ex.B5: Mee-seva generated ROR, dt.31.10.2018.

Ex.B6: Mee-seva generated pahani, dt.31.10.2018.

Ex.B7: 1) Specimen copy of e-passbook.

Ex.B8: I-B ROR specimen copy.

Ex.B9: Pahani specimen copies of Bhu-Bharathi portal of Telangana Government with the seal and signature.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KALWAKURTHY.

OS/96/2024

Sri.K.Ravi branch manager State bank of India vs Dadamoni Chennamma w/o D.Chennaiah

08 Dec 2025

1 of 11 OS.NO.96/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALWAKURTHY.

Monday, this the 08th day of December, 2025.

Present:-Smt.A.Sreedevi,

Senior Civil Judge,

Kalwakurthy.

OS.NO.96 /2024 (Old OS.NO.244/2019)

Between:

State Bank of India (ADB), Mahabubnagar Branch, Rep. by its Chief

Manager.

AND

...Plaintiff.

1. Smt. Dadamoni Chennamma W/o D.Chennaiah, Age:50 Years, Occ:Agrl,

2. Dadamoni Chennaiah S/o D.Bhimaiah, age:55 Years, Occ:Agrl, (Died),

L.R's D1, D4 and D5.

Both are R/o H.No.2-70, Thimmarasipally Village, Kalwakurthy Mandal,

Nagarkurnool Dist.

3. Maredu Chandraiah S/o D.Control, Age:49 Years, Occ:Agrl, R/o

Kondareddypally Village, Vangur Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

4. Dadamoni Balakrishna S/o D.Chennaiah, Age:36 Years, Occ:Agrl,

5. D.Shivaleela D/o D.Chennaiah, age: Major Proposed L.R. as Defendant

No.5 R/o H.NO.4-199/2, Thimmarasipally Village, Kalwakurthy Mandal,

Nagarkurnool Dist.

(The defendant Nos.1, 4 are already on record and Defendant No.5 is added as L.R. of deceased D-2, Vide I.A. No. 987 of 2022, dt.13.06.2025).

...Defendants.

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 08.12.2025 in the presence of Sri.V.Vignaneshwara Sharma Counsel for plaintiff;

Sri.C.Krishnaiah counsel for defendants and upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

2 of 11 OS.NO.96/2024

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs.11,42,866/-.

2. The brief averments of the plaint as are follows:-

The plaintiff is State Bank Of India and one of the Branches at proper

Mahabubnagar represented by its manager Smt.D.Radhika wife of

Dashratha Rama Reddy Age:40 years, Occ: Chief manager, State Bank of

India, Mahabubnagar Branch is competent to file the suit and represent the bank. The defendant No.1, 3 and deceased defendant No.2 are

Agriculturists and they were in need of financial assistance to purchase

HMT Tractor and trailer of Rs.6,0800/- they approached the plaintiff Bank for financial assistance on 09.10.2010. The total costs of the Tractor and trailer was Rs.6,08000/- where in subsidy/ barrower’s contribution is reduced for Rs.2,08,000/-. The defendant No.1, 3 and deceased defendant

No.1 application was considered by the plaintiff bank and sanctioned an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The defendant No.1, 3 and deceased defendant

No.2 have agreed the same was repay in 9 years in 18 half yearly installments with interest @ 12.75% per annum commencing from April, 2011. Accordingly, they have executed hyphothication agreement on 08.10.2010 for sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for ATL loan in favor of the plaintiff

Bank. The defendant No.4 stood as guarantor and executed deed of guarantee on 09.10.2010 in favor of plaintiff Bank for a sum of

Rs.4,00,000/-.

3.The defendant No.1 , 3 and deceased defendant No.2 have 3 of 11 OS.NO.96/2024 mortgaged the suit schedule property by executing Regd. Memorandum of

Deposit of Title Deeds through Doc.NO.10111/2010 dt.08.10.2010 for sum of Rs.50,000/- for agree term loan in favor of the plaintiff Bank. The deceased defendant No.2 died leaving behind the defendant No.1,

Defendant No.4 & 5 who have succeeded to the estate of deceased defendant No.2. The defendant NO.1 & 3 and deceased defendant No.2 failed to repay the loan amount along with agreed rate of interest. The plaintiff Bank got issued Legal notice on 16.08.2019 to the defendants.

The defendants are due an amount of Rs.11,42,866/- which includes

Principle, interest and other charges as on the date of filing of the suit.

Therefore, the plaintiff Bank was constrained to file the present suit for recovery of suit amount.

4.Therefore, it is prayed that a preliminary decree against the suit schedule mentioned property of defendant No.1, defendant No.3 and deceased defendant No. 2 for a sum of Rs.11,42,866/- and costs a subsequent interest @ 11.6 PA with monthly rests from the date of filing of the suit to be paid within a prescribed period and that in default the plaintiff be declared entitled to apply for a final decree for the sale of mortgaged property shown in the schedule. It is also prayed that if the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property are not sufficient for realization of the loan amount the plaintiff may be permitted to file a petition for passing a decree against the defendant No.1,3 to 5 with regard to rate of interest @ 11.6 PA with monthly rests from the date of suit till realization for the balance amount. Hence the suit.

4 of 11 OS.NO.96/2024

5. Written Statement of Defendants No.1, defendant No.3 & 4.

By filing the written statement the defendants denied the entire averments and allegations pleaded in the plaint. It is admitted by the defendants that defendant No.1 to 3 approached the then SBH (ADB)

Mahabubnagar Branch for Financial Assistants but defendant No.1 to 3 has not remembered exactly how much amount they have obtained as loan. It is also admitted that they have deposited title deeds and pattadar passbooks to the Bank but, they have not remembered how much of amount they have obtained. According to the defendants after availing the loan they repaid 90% of the due amount to the Bank. Then the bank officials informed the defendants that loan will be waived in view of the decision taken by the Government and directed them not to pay the remaining 10% of due amount and the same will be closed. But, the Bank authorities have filed the suit against the defendants and the due amounts shown by the plaintiff is exorbitant and arbitrary. The defendants are not liable to pay such amount as mentioned in the prayer portion.

Hence, they prayed this court dismiss the suit as it is not maintainable.

6.After gone through the pleadings of both parties the then Presiding officer framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to a preliminary decree against the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.11,42,866/- along with subsequent interest @ 11.6% per annum and costs and in default the plaintiff bank is entitled to file final decree petition for the sale of mortgaged property shown in the schedule ?

2. Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled to file a petition for passing decree against defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 to 5 for recovery 5 of 11 OS.NO.96/2024 of the amount along with interest @ 11.6 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization for the balance amount if the sale proceeds of mortgaged property are not sufficient ?

3. Whether the defendants discharged 90% loan amount to the plaintiff Bank and the remaining 10% was waived by the Government ?

4. To what relief ?

7.During the course of trial chief Manger of the plaintiff Bank was examined as Pw1 and he got marked Pw1. Exs.A1 to A21. Defendant

No.4 was examined as Dw1 but no documents are marked on behalf of defendants.

8.Heard arguments of the plaintiff and defendants

Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

As the discussion under issue No.1 to 3 is common this court is inclined to answer the above three issues together under one head.

9.The suit is was filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendants for recovery of loan amount as the defendants No.1 to 3 after obtaining loan by executing mortgaged deed in favor of the plaintiff bank on 08.10.2010 by depositing title deeds of their lands failed to repay the suit amount.

Hence, by filing this suit the plaintiff Bank contended that the defendants are liable to pay the suit amount along with interest and the plaintiff Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property for recovery of the suit amount along with the interest and also the plaintiff bank is entitled to the recovery of balance amount if any after deducting the sale proceeds of mortgaged amount from the defendants along with interest and costs.

6 of 11 OS.NO.96/2024

10.In order to establish the case the chief manager of State Bank of

India Mahabubnagar Branch is examined as Pw1 and by filing his chief affidavit he reiterated the contents stated in the plaint and also he got marked Ex.A1 to A21 all are authenticated documents issued by the plaintiff Bank and the defendants also did not dispute about the Ex.A1 to

A21. Thus, the documents under Ex.A1 to A21 are very much sufficient to come a conclusion that the defendants No.1 to 3 obtained loan from the plaintiff Bank by executing hyphothication agreement and registered mortgage deed and also they have deposited title deeds of their property as security for the mortgage loan amount. Further the defendant No.4 who is said to be guarranter of the loan amount taken by the defendant

No.1 to 3 also executed deed of guarantee in favor of plaintiff Bank on 09.10.2010. Accordingly, all the documents clinchingly proving that the defendants No.1 to 3 obtained loan from the plaintiff bank by executing relevant documents and depositing the land papers before bank.

Moreover, the defendants also not disputing about the loan obtained by them from the plaintiff bank and they have not taken any objection regarding Ex.A1 to A21.

11.Therefore, without any hesitation this court can safely come to a conclusion that the plaintiff bank is able to establish that the defendants obtained ATL loan from the plaintiff bank. It is the contention of the counsel for plaintiff that after obtaining loan the defendants failed to repay the loan amount along with agreed rate of interest in the loan account.

7 of 11 OS.NO.96/2024

Then the plaintiff bank demanded the defendants orally on number of occasions for regularization of loan amount. However, the defendant

No.1, defendant No.3 and deceased defendant No.2 failed to liquidated the loan amount in the account. The repayments made by the defendant

No.1, defendant No.3 and deceased defendant No.3 were credited to the loan account and the same was shown in the statement of account.

Thereafter, the plaintiff bank got issued legal notice on 16.08.2019 the defendants by RPAD, but they have not turned up to made the payments.

Moreover, the defendants have taken a plea in their written statement that they have repaid 90% of loan amount to the bank and the remaining 10% of loan amount was waived as per the decision taken by the Government as such there is no need to pay the balance amount.

12.In this regard as seen from the cross of Dw1 who is defendant No.4, he stated that his parents obtained loan from SBI. He has not filed any proof to show that they have discharged the 90% loan amount and also he stated that he has not filed any document to show that the bank waived the loan. The above facts are very much sufficient to come to a conclusion that the defendants falsely pleaded in the written statement that they have discharged the loan amount of 90% to the bank and the remaining 10% was waived as per the decision taken by the Government.

Moreover, except the oral testimony of Dw1 absolutely there is no supporting evidence either oral or documentary to substantiate the contention taken by the defendants in the written statement.

8 of 11 OS.NO.96/2024

13.On the other hand Dw1 himself categorically stated in his cross examination that he has not filed any document to show that the defendants have discharged 90% loan amount and the Government taken a decision to waive the 10% loan. In these circumstances this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff bank categorically established their case that the defendants after obtaining ATL loan failed to repay the same as agreed in the agreement to the bank. Accordingly, the initial burden of the plaintiff was discharged by filing cogent evidence before court, now the burden shifts on the defendants to prove that they have repaid 90% of loan amount to the plaintiff Bank and the remaining 10 % loan amount was waived as per the decision taken by the Government but the defendants utterly failed to prove that they repaid the 90% loan and 10% loan amount was waived by Government.

14.Therefore, this court can safely come to a conclusion that the plaintiff bank is entitled to the relief of recovery of suit amount by way of preliminary decree against the schedule mentioned property of defendants for a sum of Rs.11,42,866/- along with subsequent interest @ 11.6% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of the suit and costs and also the plaintiff bank is entitled to file final decree for the sale of mortgaged property shown in the schedule. Further, the plaintiff bank is entitled to the relief of passing a personal decree against the defendants with agreed rate of interest @ 11.6% per annum with monthly rests from 9 of 11 OS.NO.96/2024 the date of suit till the realization for the balance amount if any.

Accordingly, these issues are answered.

15. Issue No.4:-

In view of the findings recorded under issue No.1 to 3 this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff bank is entitled to the reliefs as prayed in the plaint.

16.In the result:- A preliminary decree against schedule mentioned property of defendants for sum of Rs.11,42,866/- is passed and costs along with subsequent interest @ 11.6% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of the suit to be paid within a period of three months, in default, the plaintiff bank is permitted to file final decree for the sale of mortgaged property shown in the suit schedule. Further, if at all the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property are not sufficient for the realization of loan amount the plaintiff is permitted to file a petition for passing of a personal decree against the defendants with agreed rate of interest @ 11.6 % per annum with monthly rests from the date of suit till the date of realization for the balance amount.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08th day of December, 2025).

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KALWAKURTHY.

10 of 11 OS.NO.96/2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: M.Srinivas.DW1: D.Balakrishna.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Application form for ATL of plaintiff-defendant Nos.1, 3 and deceased defendant No.2, dt.09-10-2010.

Ex.A2: Sanction letter of ATL of plaintiff-defendant Nos. 1, 3 and deceased defendant No.2, dt.09-10-2010.

Ex.A3: Hypothecation agreement of plaintiff-defendant Nos. 1, 3 and deceased defendant No.2, dt.08-10-2010.

Ex.A4: Deed of guarantee of plaintiff-defendant No.4, dt.09-10-2010.

Ex.A5:Registered Memorandum of deposit of title deeds doc.No.10111/2010 of plaintiff-defendant Nos. 1, 3 and deceased defendant No.2, dt.08-10-2010.

Ex.A6: Pattadar passbook (733767) of plaintiff-defendant No.1, dt.31-01- 2000.

Ex.A7: Land ownership Rights Patram (733767) of plaintiff-defendant

No.1, dt.31-01-2000.

Ex.A8: E.C NO.7150/2010 of plaintiff-defendant No.1, dt.28-09-2010.

Ex.A9: Pattadar passbook (927237) of plaintiff-deceased defendant No.2.

Ex.A10: Land ownership Rights Patram (927237).

Ex.A11: Registered sale deed doc. No.731/2002 of plaintiff-deceased 11 of 11 OS.NO.96/2024 defendant No.2, dt.01-04-2002.

Ex.A12: Pattadar passbook (161581) of plaintiff – defendant No.3, dt.17.08.2010.

Ex.A13: Land ownership Rights Patram (161581) of plaintiff – defendant

No.3, dt.17.08.2010.

Ex.A14: Registered sale deed Doc.No.5756/2005 of plaintiff – defendant

No.3 dt.26.10.2005.

Ex.A15: Statement of account of plaintiff-defendant Nos. 1, 3 and deceased defendant No.2, dt.08-08-2019.

Ex.A16: Office copy of legal notice of plaintiff-defendants, dt.16-08-2019.

Ex.A17: to A20: Postal receipt of defendant No.1 to 4, dt. 17-08-2019.

Ex.A21: Acknowledgment card due of defendant No.3, dt.24-09-2019.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

- NIL - Sd/

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KALWAKURTHY.

OS/89/2024

Jajula Balraju vs Bongarla Parusharamulu

11 Dec 2025

Pg.1 of 10 OS.No.89 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

AT: NAGARKURNOOL

On Thursday, this the 11th day of December, 2025

Present:- Smt. A. Sreedevi,

Senior Civil Judge,

Kalwakurthy, FAC Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

OS No.89 of 2024 (OS. No.206 of 2018)

Between:-

Jajula Balraju S/o Balaswamy, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Nagarkurnool Town, Mandal and District.

... Plaintiff

And

Bongarla Parusharamulu S/o Parvathalu, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Indrakal Village of Tadoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

... Defendant

***

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 04.12.2025 for disposal in the presence of Sri. V. Bangaraiah Goud, Advocate for plaintiff and of

Sri. M. Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant for recovery of a sum of

Rs.76,695/-.

2.Originally this suit was instituted on the file of II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool and the same was registered as OS.No.206 of 2018. Later, the suit was withdrawn and transferred to this Court by virtue of proceedings of Hon’ble

Pg.2 of 10 OS.No.89 of 2024

Prl. District Judge, Nagarkurnool Vide Dis.No.2329 of 2024 Dt.26-10-2024 and renumbered as OS.No.89 of 2024.

3.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

a) The plaintiff is resident of Nagarkurnool and defendant is resident of

Indrakal village of Tadoor mandal. The plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other as such the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested to arrange an amount of Rs.50,000/- for his personal and family needs. On his request the plaintiff provided the said amount of Rs.50,000/- to the defendant on 20.04.2016 and after receipt of the said amount the defendant executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ 24% per annum. Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded the defendant several times for repayment of the amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest but the plaintiff postponed the same on one pretext or other. Finally on 07.05.2018 the plaintiff got issued legal notice calling upon the defendant to reapy the amount taken under promissory note along with interest. Then the defendant received the legal notice and gave false reply on 25.05.2018 denying the transaction under suit promissory note stating that the defendant purchased seeds from the Mahalaxmi fertilizers and the said seeds were not grown up and further alleged that due to which a loss of 2 lakhs has been sustained and as such he filed CC No.33/2018

before District Forum at Mahabubnagar and the same is pending. Infact the said

CC is no way concerned to the present suit transaction and both are different and distinct . Accordingly, the plaintiff contended the defendant failed to repay the amount under the promissory note inturn gave false reply notice. Therefore, the

Pg.3 of 10 OS.No.89 of 2024 defendant is liable to pay the suit amount along with interest as agreed in the suit promissory note. Hence, the suit.

4.Written Statement filed by the defendant:

a) The defendant filed written statement and admitted that he and plaintiff are known to each other. He further contended that the plaintiff filed false suit against him and he never borrowed any amount much less Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.04.2016 by executing promissory note agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ 24% per annum. He also contended that the plaintiff is doing Mahalaxmi Fertilizers Seeds Business near Pulla Reddy Hospital,

Nagarkurnool. The defendant used to purchase the seeds from the plaintiff since 4 or 5 years likewise he purchased Cotton seeds in 2017 but the said seeds did not give any crop. As such the defendant gave complaint to the Agriculture

Officer and the officer found that the seeds are sub standard and did not give any yield. As such the defendant sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/- and issued legal notice to the plaintiff to pay loss and damages. After receipt of the notice the plaintiff did not pay any amount as such the defendant filed CC.No.33/2018

before District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar against plaintiff and Vishnu

Seeds Company for compensation and damages of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter, the plaintiff created the promissory note and filed the suit against the defendant basing on the false allegations to extract money from the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant contended that he never approached the plaintiff for borrowing the amount and he never executed any promissory note agreeing to repay the said amount along with interest @ 24% per annum. Therefore, the suit is not

Pg.4 of 10 OS.No.89 of 2024 maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

5.Basing on the above pleadings of both parties then the Presiding Officer framed the following issues for trial :-

Issues:

1. Whether the consideration is lawful ?

2. Whether the promissory note is true, valid and binding ? And the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of money as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

6.During the course of trial the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and also he got examined one Mallishetty Chandrashekar as PW2 and Ex.A1 to A5 are marked on behalf of plaintiff. The defendant was examined as DW1 and he got examined one P. Narender as DW2 and no documents are marked on behalf of defendant.

Issue No.1 and 2 :

7.Since the discussion under issue No.1 and 2 is common this Court is inclined to answer the issue No.1 and 2 together under one head.

a) The case of the plaintiff is that he and defendant are well acquainted with each other in that connection the defendant approached him and requested to arrange an amount of Rs.50,000/- to meet his personal and family needs then immediately the plaintiff provided Rs.50,000/- to the defendant and after receiving the said amount the defendant executed a promissory note in favor of plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount along with interest @ 24% per annum.

Thereafter, the defendant failed to repay the said amount inspite of repeated

Pg.5 of 10 OS.No.89 of 2024 demands and requests made by the plaintiff as such the plaintiff got issued legal notice calling the defendant to repay the amount under suit promissory note.

After receipt of the said legal notice the defendant gave reply with false allegations against the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit.

b) In order to prove his case the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and his chief affidavit is replica to the plaint contents. He also got marked Ex.A1 to

A5. Ex.A1 is original promissory note, dt.20.04.2016 showing that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ 24% per annum. Ex.A2 is Legal Notice showing that the plaintiff demanded the defendant to reapy the amount under suit promissory note along with interest. Ex.A3 and A4 are showing that the legal notice was served on the defendant. Ex.A5 is reply notice, dt.25.05.2018 showing that the defendant denied the money transaction with the plaintiff under suit promissory note. In the cross examination PW1 admitted that he is running Fertilizers shop and he is providing seeds, pesiticides and fertilizers on credit basis to the farmers and defendant is his customer he also used to buy pesticides on credit basis and he got acquiantance with defendant as he used to purchase pesticides from him.

PW1 denied the suggestion put forth to him by the counsel for defendant that he is in habit of taking promissory notes as security purpose from the farmers whenever they purchase pesticides on credit basis. He also denied that he obtained blank promissory note from the defendant when he purchased cotton seeds from him on credit basis. He admitted that defendant and his villagers

Pg.6 of 10 OS.No.89 of 2024 purchased cotton seeds from him in the year 2017 and filed complaint before

District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar against him and seeds company and the seeds company has paid compensation to the farmers.

c) Plaintiff also got examined one of the attestors of Ex.A1 namely

Malishetty Chandrashekar and he filed his chief affidavit as PW2 and stated that the transaction under Ex.A1 took place in his presence and the defendant execued promissory note for Rs.50,000/- on 20.04.2016 after receiving the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff. In the cross examination he stated that at about 8 or 10 years ago the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the defendant at his shop. He denied that the plaintiff did not pay any amount of

Rs.50,000/- to the defendant on 20.04.2016 in his presence and the defendant has not executed any promissory note in favor of plaintiff.

d) To substantiate his contention the defendant was examined as DW1 and he reitrated the contents of written statement in his chief affidavit. In the cross examination DW1 stated that he had acquaintance with the plaintiff since 6 or 7 years. He also stated that the consumer forum dismissed his complaint filed against plaintiff as he has not produced receipts showing the purchase of seeds.

He denied the suggestion that he obtained hand loan for a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff before filing complaint with consumer forum and DW1 adds that he purchased seeds on credit basis and by that time the plaintiff obtained blank promissory note. The learned counsel for the plaintiff confronted the DW1 with written statement and vakalath on seeing it the DW1 denied his signatures on written statement and vakalt but admitted his signature on Ex.A1.

Pg.7 of 10 OS.No.89 of 2024

e) DW2 is P. Narender who deposed in his chief affidavit that he is third party to the suit and he knows the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant used to purchase fertilizers, seeds and pesticides from the shop of plaintiff and the plaintiff used to obtain the signatures of purchasers on the blank promissory note as security. After payment of due of seeds and fertilizer amount the plaintiff used to promise to return the document i.e. blank promissory note to the customers and also promissed the defendant. However, he has not returned the blank promissory note and filed the present suit with false allegations. In the cross examination stated that the farmers used to get receipts and bills from the plaintiff shop. He also admitted that the farmers also take handloans from the plaintiff in addition to seeds and fertilizers and also admitted that in general the amounts will be borrowed by executing promissory notes.

8.By filing Ex.A1 to A5 the plaintiff categorically proved his case that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from him under Ex.A1 promissory note in the presence of attestors of Ex.A1. The oral evidence of PW2 also supports the case of the plaintiff and proving Ex.A1 promissory note. Further the defendant contended in the written statement that he never executed any promissory note on 20.04.2016 in favor of plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum and the said promissory note is false and created to extract money from the defendant on the other hand in the cross examination DW1 categorically stated that he purchased seeds on credit basis and by that time plaintiff obtained blank promissory note from him. There are two contradictory statements regarding the promissory note

Pg.8 of 10 OS.No.89 of 2024 by the defendant on one hand he is contending in the written statement that the promissory note is false and created and on the other hand he has stated that the plaintiff obatained blank promissory note from him as he purchased seeds on credit basis.

9.Therefore, the contention of the defendant that the promissory note is false and created can not be taken into the consideration because without taking any steps to send the promissory note for expert opinion the defendant contends that it is a false and created document. On the other hand DW2 categorically stated in his cross examination that “ it is true the farmers used to get receipts and bills from the plaintiff shop and also they take hand loans from the plaintiff in addition to seeds and fertilizers”. DW2 also categorically stated that “ It is true in general the amounts will be borrowed by executing promissory notes”. Hence, without any hesitation it can be said the consideration was passed to the defendant under Ex.A1 promissory note because DW2 himself admitted in his cross examination that the farmers used to take hand loans from the plaintiff by executing promissory notes. Thus, the story created by the defendant that plaintiff and seeds company sold out duplicate cotton seeds to him as such the seeds did not grow up and he gave complaint to Agriculture Officer later he filed a complaint before consumer forum for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and damages and after filing the said complaint the plaintiff filed the present suit by creating suit promissory note. However, in the cross examination DW1 categorically stated that the Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint filed by him as he has not produced receipts showing the purchase of seeds. Hence it

Pg.9 of 10 OS.No.89 of 2024 can be said that the defendant created the story of duplicate seeds sold by the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as no consideration was passed under Ex.A1. On the other hand, the plaintiff by placing oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with documents under Ex.A1 to A5 is able to establish that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant.

Further, the defendant utterly failed to prove that the plaintiff created a false promissory note, also the defendant has not filed any document to show that he has purchased seeds on credit basis from the plaintiff and by then the plaintiff obtained blank promissor note from him as security. Hence with the evidence of

PW1 and PW2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A5 this Court is of the opinion that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant as such the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of suit amount along with interest from the defendant.

Accordingly these issues are answered.

Issue No.3

In the result, the suit is decreed with cost directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.76,695/- along with future interest @ 12% per annum on the

principal amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization.

Typed to dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge,

Kalwakurthy, FAC Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

Pg.10 of 10 OS.No.89 of 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintiff:- PW1 : Jajula Balraju PW2 : Malishetty Chandra Shekar

For Defendant:- DW1 : B. Parusharamulu DW2 : Pitta Narendar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :- Ex.A1 : Original Promissory note, dt.20.04.2016 Ex.A2 : Legal notice, dt.07.05.2018 Ex.A3 : Postal receipt, dt.07.05.2018 Ex.A4 : Acknowledgement card Ex.A5 : Reply notice dt.25.05.2018

For Defendant :- Nil

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge,

Kalwakurthy, FAC Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

OS/36/2024

Boddupally Arjunaiah s/o Bandigaiah vs Derangula Parvathalu S/o Late Balram

08 Dec 2025

1 of 7 OS.NO.36/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALWAKURTHY.

Monday, this the 08th day of December, 2025.

Present:-Smt.A.Sreedevi,

Senior Civil Judge,

Kalwakurthy.

OS.NO.36 /2024 (Old OS.NO.15/2019)

Between:

Boddupally Arjunaiah, S/o Bandigaiah, Age: 40 years, R/o Thotapally village, Kalwakurthy Mandal, Nagarkurnool Dist.

AND

...Plaintiff.

Derangula Parvathalu S/o Late.Balram, Age: 50 years, Caste: Wadde, Occ:

Agriculture, R/o Thotapally village, Kalwakurthy Mandal, Nagarkurnool Dist.

...Defendant.

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 08.12.2025 in thepresenceofSri.K.AnjaneyuluCounselforplaintiff; Sri.A.Venkateshwar Rao counsel for defendant and upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.69,694,60 along with future interest @ 24 % per annum on the principal amount of Rs.43,870/- and costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint as are follows:-

The plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted to each other as they both belong to same village. The defendant requested the plaintiff to advance the hand loan of Rs.43,870/- for the purpose of marriage of his daughter Rajitha on 06.07.2016. Then the plaintiff gave a said amount to the defendant in cash by borrowing the said amount the defendant 2 of 7 OS.NO.36/2024 promised to repay the same along with interest and executed promissory note in the presence of Chandraiah and P.Rajendar reddy and one

T.Laxmaiah is scribe of the said promissory note. Thereafter, the defendant has not paid the amount as agreed in the promissory note as such the plaintiff got issued Legal notice to the defendant on 14.01.2018 inspite of it the defendant did not turn up to reply the notice nor pay the amount. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for recovery of suit amount from the defendants along with the interests.

Hence, this suit.

3. Written Statement of Defendant:-

The defendant filed a written statement denying the plaint averments and also he contended that the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is also contended that he never borrowed any amount much less suit amount from the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses and scribe under promissory note agreeing to repay the same along with interests @ 24% per annum. Accordingly, the defendant denied the transaction of suit promissory note and prayed this court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.After gone through the pleadings of both parties the then Presiding officer framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note dt.06.07.2016 for an amount of

Rs.43,870/- is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of suit amount from the defendant along with interest @ 24% per annum ?

3 of 7 OS.NO.36/2024

3. To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial the plaintiff was examined as Pw1 and he got examined Pw2 (One of the attestors of promissory note) and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. The defendant No.1 was examined as Dw1 but no document is marked on behalf of defendant

6.Heard arguments of the plaintiff and defendant and perused the

Written arguments filed by the plaintiff.

7. Issues Nos. 1 & 2:-

The case of the plaintiff is that he and defendant are well acquainted with each other as they both belong to the same village. Due to the intimacy with the plaintiff the defendant requested him to arrange hand loan of Rs.43,870/- for the purpose of his daughter’s marriage on 06.07.2016. As such the plaintiff gave the amount of Rs.43,870/- to the defendant and after receipt of the said amount in the presence of two witnesses namely B.Chandraiah and P.Rajendar Reddy the defendant executed promissory note agreeing to repay the said amount along with interest @ 24% per annum and the scribe of promissory note one

T.Laxmaiah. Thereafter, the defendant failed to repay the amount taken under the promissory note inspite of oral requests made by the plaintiff as such the plaintiff got issued legal notice for repayment of amount.

However, the defendant did not give any reply to the Legal notice and not repaid any amount. Hence, the plaintiff by filing the suit prayed this court to pass decree for recovery of suit amount from the defendant.

4 of 7 OS.NO.36/2024

8.In order to establish his case the plaintiff was examined as Pw1 and his chief affidavit is replica to the plaint and also he got marked Ex.A1 to

A5. Ex.A1 is original promissory note dt.06.07.2016 disclosing that the defendant received loan Rs.43,870/- from the plaintiff in the presence of two witnesses by executing the promissory note in favor of the plaintiff and agreed to repay the said amount along with interest @ 24 % per annum and the scribe of the promissory note is one T.Laxmaiah. Ex.A2 is

Legal notice, Ex.A3 is Postal receipt showing that the defendant received legal notice issued by the plaintiff. However, he has not given any reply nor paid any amount to the plaintiff. Ex.A4 and A5 are showing that the defendant is pattadar and possessor of land in sy.no.381 and 75 an extent of Ac.00-23 gts and Ac.01-32 gts. All the documents under Ex.A1 to A5 support the case of plaintiff that the defendant has taken money from the plaintiff by executing Ex.A1. However, he failed to repay the same inspite of repeated requests made by the plaintiff and also receipt of legal notice.

The plaintiff also got examined Pw2 who is one of the attestors of Ex.A1 promissory note he also categorically stated in his chief affidavit about the transaction under Ex.A1 took place in his presence. Even though the learned counsel for the defendant cross examined the Pw1 & Pw2 at length nothing is elicited that the transaction under Ex.A1 promissory note is false and created.

9.The defendant was examined as Dw1 and he reiterated the contents stated in the Written statement. In the cross examination Dw1 5 of 7 OS.NO.36/2024 categorically admitted that he has not issued any reply notice to the plaintiff after receipt of legal notice. Further, without filing any proof

before court Dw1 simply denied regarding the transaction under Ex.A1

promissory note. If at all he has not received amount from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 in the presence of two attestors and scribe what prevented him to give reply notice to the Legal notice/Ex.A2 issued by the plaintiff.

However, no such reply notice is given to the plaintiff. Moreover, except denying the plaint averments and transaction under Ex.A1 the defendant did not file any cogent evidence either oral or documentary to prove that the transaction under Ex.A1 is created and he never put his thumb impression on Ex.A1.

10.On the other hand the plaintiff categorically established his case by examining Pw1 & Pw2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A5 that the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.43,870/- under Ex.A1 and agreed to repay the same along with interest @ 24 % per annum. Accordingly, the plaintiff could discharge his initial burden and now the defendant has to prove that the suit promissory note is false and created. However, the defendant utterly failed to prove the same and without taking any steps to disprove the promissory note, the defendant vehemently contended that he never borrowed any amount by executing Ex.A1. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the defendant utterly failed to prove that the transaction under Ex.A1 is false and he never put his thumb impression by receiving amount from the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff is able to establish that the 6 of 7 OS.NO.36/2024 suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of suit amount from the plaintiff along with interest.

11. Issue No.3:-

In view of the findings recorded under issue No.1 & 2 this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of suit amount from the defendant along with interest @ 24 % per annum.

12.In the result, The suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.69,694.60 along with future interest @ 12 % per annum on the principal amount of Rs.43,870/- from the date of suit till the date of realization of the suit amount.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08th day of December, 2025).

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KALWAKURTHY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: B.Arjunaiah.DW1: Derangula Parvathalu.

PW2: Pasula Rajendar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Pronote in dt.06.07.2016.

Ex.A2: O/C Legal notice issued to the defendant dt.14.01.2019.

7 of 7 OS.NO.36/2024

Ex.A3: Postal receipts (1).

Ex.A4: 1-B ROR.

Ex.A5: E-Pahani.

FOR DEFENDANT:

-NIL-

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KALWAKURTHY.

Order Record 419 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/271/2024	Ramavath Thirupathi vs Ramavath Jannu	04 May 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/141/2024	Ryapani Chandra Shekar vs Pallavi @ Derangula Manjula	04 May 2026	Judgment	—
OS/10/2022	R. Satyanarayana vs Pasha Niranjan	30 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/233/2024	Merugu Sarvanthi vs Kadire Venkat reddy	27 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/25/2025	Dobbali Balaram vs Kadari Chinna Kurumaiah	17 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/8/2024	Yedipally Ushain s/o Y.Narasaiah vs Dureddy Govind Reddy s/o Dureddy Bicha Reddy,	16 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/56/2025	Anthati Jangamma vs Anthati Laxmamma	16 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/32/2025	Tharnikanti Anil vs Tharnikanti Ankhitha alias Karvanga Srinidhi	16 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/105/2025	Orsu Ramakrishna vs Orsu Jyothi alias Madhulatha	16 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/319/2024	Shaikh Abdullah vs Raziya Begum	10 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/74/2023	Konyala Maheshwari vs Konyala Ashok Chary @ Ashok Kumar	10 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/85/2025	Makkala Shekar vs Vallepu Sharadha alias Makkala Sharadha	10 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/96/2025	Marati Manjula vs B. Madhu alias B. Maddileti	10 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/116/2025	Midde Mallaiah alias Mallesh vs Midde Nagalaxmi alias Vanitha	10 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/120/2025	Kalluri Lalitha alias Vemula Lalitha vs Kalluri Gangadhar Goud	10 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/126/2025	Kasoju Mounesh Chary vs Venoju Nandini	10 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/270/2024	Krishna Reddy Karakala vs B. Goverdhana Chary	09 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/74/2025	Gumpu Janardhan vs Gumpu Sharada	09 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/135/2025	Boddu Teja vs Boddu Gayatri	09 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/101/2025	M.Chandra Kumar vs Chinna Galla Bharathi alias Nirmala	08 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/58/2008	Galeti Tirupathaiah vs Karkonda Narayana	07 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/134/2024	M. Ramaswamy vs Chenna Mallaiah	07 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/97/2025	Dadamoni Sandhya alias Lavanya vs Dadamoni Balaswamy	07 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/111/2023	V. Jayanthi vs R. Narayana	07 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/112/2023	R. Narayana vs V. Jayanthi	07 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/134/2025	Musti Jaya Sudha vs Musti Bala Raju	02 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/88/2025	K. Laxman Naik alias Laxman vs Khaja Mynoddin	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/62/2025	R. Aravind vs R. Aparna	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/309/2024	Thota Shivakumar vs Jajula Raju	13 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/107/2025	Panuganti Parvathamma vs Panuganti Niranjan	13 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/48/2025	Dureddy Manemma vs Dureddy Dayanand reddy	12 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/115/2025	Vannepu Praveen goud vs Vannepu Ravi goud	12 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/121/2024	Dandu Vijaya vs Beereddy Chenna Reddy	12 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/42/2025	Katike Mallesh alias Mallaji vs K. Swapna alias Sandhya Bai	12 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
EP/15/2023	K. Lavanya vs K. Laxma Reddy	03 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/179/2024	Erkali Chittaiah vs Erkali Thammaiah	03 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/293/2024	Kadthala Jayalaxami vs S. Mangali THirupathaiah	03 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/69/2024	Thadakala Kartheek @ Kartheek Naidu vs Thadakala Manasa @ Divyasree	03 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/79/2025	Kakurala Shivaleela vs Kakurala Nagesh	03 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/2/2023	Sadu Rajeshwari vs Boddam Saraswathamma	02 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/112/2025	Gunna Goverdhan reddy vs Gunna Narasimha reddy	26 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/82/2025	Badepally Raghavendar Goud vs Badepally Anusha alias Nomula Anusha	26 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
OS/39/2025	Gellella Amruthamma vs Chekkala Neelaiah	25 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
OS/60/2024	Mudavath Kurvamma vs Thogari Krishnaiah	24 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
OS/69/2025	Mangali Manemma vs Mangali Gopi	20 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
OS/147/2024	Vavilala Prasanna vs T. Ramchandra reddy	20 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
OS/364/2024	G. Narender vs Maddi Anjaneyulu Goud	20 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
EP/7/2019	Udutha Gopal vs Ushikilla Laxmi	19 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
OS/163/2024	Panuganti Padamamma vs Dokka Muthyalamma	18 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
OS/13/2025	Gunna Krishna reddy vs Gunna Kalavathama	06 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
OS/55/2025	Jaanumpally Shobha vs Puljala Ramulu	06 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
OS/287/2024	Jetti Jyotheeshwari vs S. Rajeshwar reddy	06 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
OS/243/2024	Nellikonda Lingamma vs Chikkondra Nagaiah	04 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/61/2025	Narsimha alias Gudheti Narsimha vs Lavanya alias Gudheti Radhika alias Rasala Radhika	04 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
OS/320/2024	S. Narender Reddy vs Karvanga Narasimha	03 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/61/2024	Vallepu Lalu vs Vallepu Shivaleela	03 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/113/2025	Yellikanti Sridevi alias Mokurala Sridevi vs Mokurala Mallayya alias Mallesh	03 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
OS/78/2017	Kotla Sridevi vs Vavilala Deva Reddy	30 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/51/2024	Kenche Annapurnamma vs Yashodamma	28 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/125/2024	Belli Hymavathi vs Kathe Laxamma	28 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/102/2024	Soppari Ramulu vs Kankali Yadaiah	27 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/325/2024	Madam Shetty CHinna Kondaiah vs Madam Shetty Chandramouli	27 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/340/2024	Shriram Finance Limited, Wanaparthy, Rep.by D. Anil Kumar vs K. Parusharamulu	27 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/35/2025	Namini Srujana vs Gujjari Shiva Kumar	27 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/52/2024	Soppari Laxmidevamma vs Soppari Anjanamma	23 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/248/2024	V. Ram reddy vs Subramanyam	23 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/357/2024	K. Sudhakar vs Padma Balaiah	23 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/162/2024	Kotla Bojjamma vs Kotla Sharadamma and others 8	22 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/180/2025	Kesumolla Chandramma vs Athmakur Nagamani	22 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/10/2025	Panjugula Ashok Goud vs Panjugula Anitha alias Salamma	22 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/45/2025	Sanganamoni Mahesh vs Macha Ramya	22 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/115/2025	Arepally Balraju vs Arepally Shirisha alias Vanka Shirisha alias Baleeswaramma	22 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/13/2017	M.Srinivas Reddy vs Kodganti Hanmanth Reddy	21 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/120/2025	Chetamoni Thirupathamma vs Kodeti Arjunaiah	21 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/80/2025	Mekala Ramulu vs Manasa alias Kolavandala Nagamani	21 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/42/2024	Thurkadinne Shantamma vs Bongarla Yellaiah	20 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/30/2025	Giri Prashanth Alias Prashanth Goud vs Kumbham Prashanthi Alias Dr. Prashanthi	19 Jan 2026	Order	—
OS/24/2016	Beereddy Nageswar Reddy vs Gujjari Balakrishna	09 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/286/2024	Mekala Laxmaiah vs Doma Yadamma	09 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/176/2024	Apsar Jani vs Vadla Manemma	08 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/205/2024	Viduthala Nageshwari vs Athinarapu Sailoo	08 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/338/2024	Kongari Shivaiah vs Kodeti Arjunaiah	08 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/55/2019	State Bank of India vs Jabbu Niranjan S/o Savaraiah	07 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/71/2025	Avula Suresh vs Avula Mounika	07 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/112/2025	Mamilla Namratha vs Srinatha. S	07 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/130/2024	Rodda Ramudu vs Rodda Sudharani	07 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
OS/143/2025	Kadapa Girija w/o Kadapa Pandurangaiah vs Marikanti Nirmala	31 Dec 2025	Judgment	—
OS/149/2025	Muddiraju Chandrakala vs Thokala Srinivasulu	31 Dec 2025	Judgment	—
OS/189/2024	Papakanti Balaiah vs Abdul Lateef	30 Dec 2025	Judgment	—
OS/358/2024	Smt.K. Archana vs Kumbarti Venkat Narayana	30 Dec 2025	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/76/2024	Gaddam Swapna vs Gaddam Venkatesh	30 Dec 2025	Judgment	—
OS/136/2024	Chintakuntla Lakshmamma vs M. Sukanya	23 Dec 2025	Judgment	—
OS/186/2025	S.Manikat vs Dasari Krishnaiah	23 Dec 2025	Judgment	—
OS/157/2025	The State Bank of India, Nagarkurnool Branch Rep. by its Branch Manager A. Madhusudhana Rao vs Keerthi Niharika Filling Station Rep. by its Proprietor namely Kandala Ramakrishnaiah	19 Dec 2025	Judgment	—
OS/213/2024	Barigala Niranjan vs Guruku Krishnaiah	19 Dec 2025	Judgment	—
OS/240/2024	Khanapuram Ramulu vs Kahanapuram Anjaneyulu	19 Dec 2025	Judgment	—
OS/314/2024	Dodla Vinodamma alias Manoharamma vs Sanugommula Chinna Reddy	19 Dec 2025	Judgment	—
EP/11/2019	Kotla Ramadevi vs Kotla Narendernath	18 Dec 2025	Judgment	—
OS/160/2024	C.Samyuthamma W/o Late Janardhan Reddy vs Bathini Rajendar Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy	15 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
OS/172/2024	Gajje Laxmamma w/o Late Yadaiah vs V.Venkatnarayana s/o Late V.Chinna Lalaiah and 22 others	12 Dec 2025	Order	—

Showing 100 of 419 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		2
Apr 2026		27
Mar 2026		12
Feb 2026		17
Jan 2026		29
Dec 2025		41
Nov 2025		7
Oct 2025		2
Sep 2025		24
Aug 2025		11
Jul 2025		9
Jun 2025		18

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.A.Sreedevi handled?

Smt.A.Sreedevi has handled 441 court orders since 2023 at Kalwakurthy, SCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 12 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.A.Sreedevi hear?

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

Where is Smt.A.Sreedevi currently posted?

Smt.A.Sreedevi is posted as Senior Civil Judge at Kalwakurthy, SCJ Court Complex, Nagarkurnool, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt.A.Sreedevi available online?

Yes. 17 judgments by Smt.A.Sreedevi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.A.Sreedevi dispose cases?

Smt.A.Sreedevi disposes approximately 12 cases per month, based on 441 orders handled over their tenure at Kalwakurthy, SCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt.A.Sreedevi serving?

Smt.A.Sreedevi has been serving at Kalwakurthy, SCJ Court Complex since 2023.

Case Types

OS 59%

H 30%

SC 6%

EP 4%

CMA 0%

IP 0%

AS 0%

CC 0%

Posting History

Dec 2025 — Apr 2026

Senior Civil Judge · 2 orders
Dec 2025 — Present

Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,Nagarkurnool · 102 orders
Nov 2025 — Dec 2025

Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,Nagarkurnool · 18 orders
May 2023 — Dec 2025

Senior Civil Judge · 319 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Smt.Nadigottu Srinidhi

Prl JCJ cum JMFC

0 orders

Sri M.Raju

Senior Civil Judge

0 orders

← View all judges at Kalwakurthy, SCJ Court Complex