Sri B Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi

APGU000008222026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: GUNTUR.

Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026

G.W.O.P.No.230/2026

Between:

Gopidi Sujilakshmi @ Keesari Sujilakshmi D/o Gopidi Narsireddy W/o Keesari Vijay Kumar, aged about 31 yrs, R/o Dr NO.19-16-607, Pooja Enclave, 1st lane, Chaitanyapuri Colony, Guntur. …Petitioner.

And

Keesari Vijay Kumar, aged 40 yrs, Private job, R/o Dr No.19-16-607, Pooja Enclave, 1st lane, Chaitanyapuri colony, Guntur. … Respondent.

This petition coming on 1.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Ankamma Rao, Advocate for petitioner and respondent remained exparte and upon perusing the material placed on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking permission to sell the petition schedule properties, including the share of the minor ward, in favour of the prospective purchaser, Ravutla Singaraiah, who entered into

Agreements of Sale with the petitioner, and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and her minor son jointly acquired Item No.1 of the schedule property admeasuring 155.25

Sq. Yards in D.No.136/A of Ankireddypalem Village through a registered Gift

Deed No.3496/2019 dated 31.05.2019 from Vajrala Vennela, and 2 subsequently acquired Item No.2 admeasuring another 155.25 Sq. Yards in the same survey number through registered Gift Deed No.4954/2019 dated 27.07.2019 from Vajrala Jayarami Reddy. Since then, they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties with absolute rights.

Thereafter, the petitioner and her husband constructed residential buildings consisting of ground and first floors on both sites by investing their own funds.

The petitioner submits that due to financial difficulties and the joint nature of ownership, she is unable to effectively utilize the property, which is not generating any income and instead requires expenditure towards taxes, repairs, and maintenance. The petitioner, being a housewife with no independent source of income, requires funds for the welfare and future educational needs of the minor son, who is presently studying 5th Class.

Considering the favorable market value, the petitioner decided to sell the properties for the benefit of the minor and herself. Accordingly, one Ravutla

Singaraiah agreed to purchase both items for Rs.42,00,000/- each under

Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2026, which the petitioner states is the best available market price. As the minor holds a half share in the properties, the prospective purchaser insisted upon obtaining permission from the competent

Court for sale of the minor’s share. The petitioner undertakes to deposit the minor’s share amount in a fixed deposit until he attains majority or to utilize the same for purchasing a better property or asset in the minor’s name for his welfare and education. Hence, the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to sell the schedule properties, including the minor’s share, as the proposed sale is necessary and beneficial to the minor.

3.In this case, notice was served on the respondent personally, but he remained absent and was accordingly set ex parte. Thereafter, this Court ordered issuance of general notice through publication in “Prajasakthi”.

Accordingly, the petitioner caused publication of the notice in “Prajasakthi” and also gave wide publicity in the petition schedule locality by beat of tom-tom.

However, no third party objector came forward to file any objection.

3

4.In order to prove her case, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. In support of her contention, the intending purchaser was also examined as P.W.2.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the entire material available on record.

6.Now, the point that arises for consideration before this Court is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to permission to sell the

share of the minor ward in the petition schedule property

as prayed for ?

POINT :

7.1.The petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and filed her chief- examination affidavit reiterating the averments made in the petition. She deposed that she and her minor son jointly acquired two house sites admeasuring 155.25 Sq. Yards each in D.No.136/A of Ankireddypalem Village through registered Gift Deeds dated 31.05.2019 and 27.07.2019 and subsequently constructed residential buildings thereon from their own funds.

In support of her contention, P.W.1 produced Exs.A2 and A3. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of Gift Deed dated 31.05.2019 executed by Vajrala Vennela in favour of Gopidi Suji Lakshmi and another. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of Gift

Deed dated 27.07.2019 executed by Vajrala Jaya Rami Reddy in favour of

Gopidi Suji Lakshmi and another. P.W.1 further deposed that due to financial difficulties, maintenance expenses, and the non-income generating nature of the properties, she intends to sell the same for the welfare and future education of the minor son. One Ravutla Singaraiah agreed to purchase both properties for Rs.42,00,000/- each under Agreements of Sale dated 29.01.2026. In support of the same, P.W.1 produced Exs.A4 and A5. Ex.A4 is the original Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2026 executed in favour of

Ravutla Singaraiah in respect of Item No.1, and Ex.A5 is the original

Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2026 executed in favour of Ravutla Singaraiah in respect of Item No.2. As the minor has a half share in the properties, permission of the Court is required for sale of the minor’s share. The petitioner 4 undertook to deposit the minor’s share amount in a fixed deposit or utilize the same for purchase of a better property for the benefit of the minor. Hence, the petition is filed seeking permission to sell the share of the minor ward in the petition schedule properties.

7.2.Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner should be permitted to sell the petition schedule property. This Court has carefully perused the petition and the material available on record. The respondent remained ex parte. Though general notice was issued, no person came forward claiming any right over the minor or disputing the relationship between the petitioner and the minor ward. No objection was raised regarding the care, custody, and maintenance of the minor by the petitioner. Except the petitioner, no one came forward to dispute her claim despite issuance of general notice. Hence, the contention of the petitioner remained unchallenged.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, being the natural mother and guardian of the minor ward, can safely be permitted to sell the share of the minor ward in the petition schedule property for the welfare, education, and future necessities of the minor ward.

7.3.The next question that arises for consideration is whether the proposed sale consideration is just and reasonable. P.W.1 categorically stated in her evidence that she agreed to sell the petition schedule property to P.W.2

Ravutla Singaraiah for a consideration of Rs.42,00,000/- for each item and executed Agreements of Sale dated 29.01.2026. In support of the same,

Exs.A4 and A5 were marked. Ex.A4 is the original agreement of sale deed dt:

29.1.2026 executed by Gopidi Vijayalakshmi and another in favour of Ravutla

Singaraiah for item No.1. Ex.A5 is the original agreement of sale deed dt:

29.1.2026 executed by Gopidi Vijayalakshmi and another in favour of Ravutla

Singaraiah for item No.2. It is further stated that the petitioner and the minor ward are each entitled to 1/2 share in the sale proceeds and the share of the minor ward will be deposited in his name in a fixed deposit in a bank. In order to establish that the proposed sale is beneficial to the minor ward, the petitioner filed the market value certificate issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar, 5

Nallapadu, dated 31.01.2026 in respect of the petition schedule property.

However, the said document was not marked on her behalf due to oversight.

Nevertheless, this Court has perused the said certificate for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether the proposed sale consideration is just and reasonable. As per the said certificate, the land value is Rs.18,63,000/- and the structure value is Rs.22,35,000/-, totaling Rs.40,98,000/- for each item.

Further, the intending purchaser was examined as P.W.2, who deposed that the petitioner agreed to sell the petition schedule property to him for a consideration of Rs.42,00,000/- for each item. Thus, the agreed sale consideration is higher than the market value reflected in the market value certificate.

7.4.Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the proposed sale consideration is just, fair, and reasonable and that the proposed sale is beneficial to the minor ward. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner can be permitted to sell the share of the minor ward in the petition schedule property and execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of P.W.2 Ravutla Singaraiah in respect of the 1/2 share of the minor ward along with her own share, subject to depositing the share amount of the minor ward in a Nationalized Bank for his benefit. Accordingly, this point is answered.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed without costs, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner is permitted to sell and execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of P.W.2 Ravutla Singaraiah in respect of the 1/2 share of the minor ward along with her own share in the petition schedule property.

(ii) The petitioner shall deposit the sale proceeds pertaining to the 1/2 share of the minor ward i.e., an amount of Rs.42,00,000/- in any Nationalized Bank in the name of the minor ward for his benefit and shall submit proof of such deposit before this Court immediately after execution of the sale deed.

6

(iii) The petitioner shall utilize the sale proceeds only for the welfare, education, benefit, and future necessities of the minor ward.

(iv) The petitioner shall maintain proper accounts in respect of the sale proceeds relating to the 1/2 share of the minor ward and produce the same

before the Court whenever directed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT: None.

P.W.1: Gopidi Sujilakshmi @ Keesari Sujilakshmi P.W.2: Ravutla Singaraiah

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A1 is the birth certificate of Keesari Jaya Sankar Reddy.

Ex.A2 is the the certified copy of gift deed dt: 31.5.2018 executed by Vajrala Vennela in favour of Gopidi Suji Lakshmi and another.

Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of gift deed dt: 27.7.2019 executed by Vajrala Jaya Rami Reddy in favour of Gopidi Suji Lakshmi and another.

Ex.A4 is the original agreement of sale deed dt: 29.1.2026 executed by Gopidi Vijayalakshmi and another in favour of Ravutla Singaraiah for item No.1.

Ex.A5 is the original agreement of sale deed dt: 29.1.2026 executed by Gopidi Vijayalakshmi and another in favour of Ravutla Singaraiah for item No.2.

FOR RESPONDENT: Nil.

Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

1

APGU000012252026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: GUNTUR.

Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026

G.W.O.P.No.354/2026

Between:

1. Sadineni Nandeeswari W/o Late Sravan Kumar, aged about 36 years, Hindu, private employee, resident of Door No 2-2, Gottipadu Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District, JCJC Guntur.

2. Sadineni Bharata Lakshmi W/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 57 years, House wife, resident of Door No 2-2, Gottipadu Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District, JCJC Guntur. …Petitioners.

And

NIL… Respondent.

This petition coming on 4.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Anjaneya Prasad, Advocate for petitioner and upon perusing the material placed on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This is an application filed by the petitioners seeking permission to sell the minors’ half share in the petition schedule property, i.e., Flat No.304 in “MOUNT VIEW–2” Apartments, Pedapalakaluru Village, Guntur City, along with an undivided and unspecified share of 44.718 sq. yards, for discharge of the outstanding bank loan over the said property and for the welfare, needs, and necessities of the minors, and to pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.

2 2.1.The 1st petitioner is the mother and the 2nd petitioner is the paternal grandmother of the minor wards, namely, Sadineni Devaansh (aged about 11 years) and Sadineni Himaansh (aged about 8 years). The wards’ father, Sadineni Sravan Kumar, a software engineer, died on 26.05.2021 due to COVID-19, leaving behind the petitioners and the minors as his Class-I legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act. The minors are presently under the care and custody of the 1st petitioner. The deceased purchased the petition schedule property, i.e., Flat No.304 in the second floor of “MOUNT

VIEW–2” Apartments, Pedapalakaluru Village, Guntur, along with an undivided share of land, under a registered Sale Deed dated 21.12.2019 bearing Doc. No.11824/2019. For the purchase of the said property, he availed a housing loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from ICICI Bank, Lakshmipuram

Branch, Guntur, which was being serviced from his earnings during his lifetime.

2.2.After his death, the 1st petitioner has been repaying the loan installments of about Rs.21,000/- per month with great difficulty. The outstanding loan amount as of December, 2025 is about Rs.20,00,000/-. Due to financial hardship, the petitioners are unable to continue repayment of the loan, and any default may adversely affect their creditworthiness as well as the welfare of the minors. One prospective purchaser, namely, Beesetty Vani, has offered to purchase the property for Rs.24,00,000/- and has agreed to clear the outstanding bank loan. The petitioners intend to utilize the remaining balance amount for the education and welfare of the minors. Since the petitioners and the minors are the only legal heirs and the property has devolved upon them, and considering the financial difficulties faced by them and the benefit of the minors, the petitioners seek permission of this Court to sell the petition schedule property, including the share of the minors, for discharge of the loan and for their welfare. Hence, the petition.

3.In this case, there are no respondents. This Court ordered issuance of general notice by way of publication in “Day-to-Day”. Accordingly, the petitioners published the general notice in “Day-to-Day” and also gave 3 wide publicity by beat of tom-tom in the locality of the petition schedule property. No third-party objectors have come forward to file any objections.

4.To prove their case, the 1st petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. In support of their contention, the petitioners also examined the intending purchaser as P.W.2.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the entire material available on record.

6. Now, the point that arises for consideration before this Court is:

“Whether the petitioners are entitled to permission to sell the petition schedule property belonging to the minor wards, as prayed for?”

POINT :

7.1.The 1st petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and filed her chief- examination affidavit reiterating the averments made in the petition. She stated that the 1st petitioner is the mother and the 2nd petitioner is the paternal grandmother of the minor wards, namely, Sadineni Devaansh (aged about 11 years) and Sadineni Himaansh (aged about 8 years). Their father,

Sadineni Sravan Kumar, a software engineer, died on 26.05.2021 due to

COVID-19, leaving behind the petitioners and the minors as his Class-I legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act. In support of their case, Exs.A2 and A3 were marked. Ex.A2 is the death certificate of late Sadineni Sravan Kumar and Ex.A3 is the family member certificate. The minors are under the care and custody of the 1st petitioner. The deceased purchased Flat No.304 in “MOUNT VIEW–2” Apartments, Pedapalakaluru Village, Guntur, under a registered Sale Deed dated 21.12.2019 bearing Doc. No.11824/2019 executed by Nannapaneni Ganga Parvathi, by availing a housing loan of

Rs.25,00,000/- from ICICI Bank, Guntur, which was being serviced during his lifetime. Ex.A1 is the said Sale Deed. After his death, the 1st petitioner has been paying monthly installments of about Rs.21,000/- and the outstanding 4 loan amount as of December, 2025 is about Rs.20,00,000/-, thereby causing severe financial hardship. In support of the same, Ex.A7, being the bank account statement of ICICI Bank standing in the name of Sadineni

Nandeeswari, was marked. As the petitioners and the minors are the only legal heirs, they seek permission to sell the petition schedule property, including the share of the minors, for discharge of the loan and for their benefit.

7.2.This Court has carefully perused the petition and the material available on record. Though general notice was issued, no person came forward claiming any right over the minors or disputing the relationship between the petitioners and the minor wards. No objection was raised regarding the care, custody, and maintenance of the minor wards by the 1st petitioner. Except the petitioners, no one came forward or raised any dispute regarding their claim despite issuance of general notice. Hence, the contention of the petitioners remains unchallenged.

7.3.Now, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners should be permitted to sell the petition schedule property. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. This Court has perused the documents available on record. P.W.1, in her evidence, categorically stated that the petitioners and the minor wards are having shares in the petition schedule property and that, after clearing the outstanding loan amount, the remaining amount would be deposited in the names of the minor wards in fixed deposits in a bank. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the 1st petitioner, being the natural guardian and mother of the minor wards, can safely be permitted to sell the petition schedule property for the welfare, education, and necessities of the minor wards.

7.4.Now, the further question that arises for consideration is whether the proposed sale consideration is just and reasonable. P.W.1, in her evidence, categorically stated that the prospective purchaser, Beesetty Vani, has offered Rs.24,00,000/- for purchase of the petition schedule property and agreed to clear the outstanding loan amount, and that the remaining amount 5 would be deposited in the names of the minor wards in fixed deposits in a bank. In order to establish that the proposed sale is beneficial to the minor wards, the petitioners filed Ex.A6, being the market value certificate issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar-138, Nallapadu, dated 03.02.2026, in respect of the petition schedule property. As seen from Ex.A6, the land value in the locality of the petition schedule property is Rs.6,74,050/-, the structure value is

Rs.16,46,450/-, and the total market value is Rs.23,20,500/-. Further, in support of the contention of the petitioners, the intending purchaser was examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 deposed in her chief-examination affidavit that she agreed to purchase the petition schedule property for a sale consideration of

Rs.24,00,000/-. Therefore, the proposed sale consideration of Rs.24,00,000/- is slightly higher than the guideline market value reflected under Ex.A6.

Hence, the proposed sale of the property is beneficial to the minor wards and this Court is of the considered opinion that the sale consideration is just, fair, and reasonable. Accordingly, upon considering the submissions made and the material available on record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioners can be permitted to sell the petition schedule property and execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the intending purchaser in respect of the shares of the minor wards along with their own shares, subject to a direction to deposit the remaining amount, after clearance of the loan amount due to ICICI Bank, Guntur, in the names of the minor wards in any nationalized bank for their benefit. Accordingly, this point is answered.

7.5.In the result, the Petition is allowed without costs, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners are permitted to sell and execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the prospective purchaser, namely, Beesetty

Vani, in respect of the shares of the minor wards along with their own shares in the petition schedule property. The petitioners shall deposit the remaining amount, after clearing the outstanding loan amount due to ICICI Bank, Guntur, in the names of each of the minor wards in any nationalized bank for their 6 benefit, and shall submit proof of such deposit before this Court immediately after execution of the sale deed;

(ii) The petitioners shall utilize the remaining sale proceeds, after clearing the loan amount, arising from the shares of the minor wards solely for their welfare, benefit, education, and future requirements; and

(iii) The petitioners shall maintain proper accounts in respect of the sale proceeds relating to the shares of the minor wards from the petition schedule property and shall produce the same before this Court as and when directed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT: None.

P.W.1: Sadineni Nandeeswari P.W.2: Sadineni Bharata Lakshmi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A1 is the sale deed dt: 21.12.2019 bearing NO.11824/2019 executed in favour of late Sadineni Sravan Kumar by Nannapaneni Ganga Parvathi.

Ex.A2 is the death certificate dt: 1.6.2021 of late Sadineni Sravan Kumar issued by Registrar of Birth & Death, GHMC, Hyderabad.

Ex.A3 is the family member certificate dt: 16.6.2021 issued by Tahsildar, Prathipadu.

Ex.A4 is the birth certificate dt: 31.07.2019 of Sadineni Devaansh.

7

Ex.A5 is the birth certificate dt: 7.07.2018 of Sadineni Himaansh.

Ex.A6 is the Market value certificate issued by Sub Registrar, Nallapadu.

Ex.A7 is the Account statement fo ICICI Bank stands in the name of Sadineni Nandeeswari.

FOR RESPONDENT: Nil.

Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

APGU000032192026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: GUNTUR.

Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.No.695/2026 in Cr.No.37/2026 of Atchempeta P.S.,

Between:

1. Gunji Vijay Kumar S/o Veera Govind, Hindu, aged about 21 yrs, R/o Orvakallu village, Atchampet Mandal, Palnadu District, Guntur.(A1)

2. Gunji Santhi Kumari @ Santhi W/o Veera Govind, Hindu, aged about 45 yrs.(A2)

3. Gunji Veera Govind S/o Pedda Lakshmaiah, Hindu, aged about 50 yrs. (A3)

4. Gunji Mahesh S/o Veera Govind, Hindu, aged about 23 yrs. (A4) All are R/o Orvakallu village, Atchampet Mandal, Palnadu District, Guntur. … Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4

And

Complainant: The State: SHO, Atchampeta Police station, Palnadu District. … Complainant/Respondent

This petition coming on 12.5.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri I. Siva Rama Krishna, Advocate, Counsel for the Petitioners/A1 to A4 and of the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

1.This is the third bail application filed by the petitioners under

Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, seeking regular bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 107 r/w 3(5) of the BNS in Crime No.37/2026 of Atchempeta Police Station.

2

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and other accused instigated the deceased, a 14-year-old girl from Orvakallu Village, to consume pesticide with A1 to pressure her parents to consent to marriage. A1 brought the pesticide from his house and gave it to her; she consumed it and later died while undergoing treatment. A1 also consumed a small quantity.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged. They are in no way connected with the crime and have been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that A1 attempted suicide along with the deceased, but A1 survived after receiving medical treatment and continues to suffer from ill health due to the consumption of pesticide. He is still undergoing medical treatment in the sub-jail. It is further submitted that A2 is a woman, A3 is suffering from tuberculosis and is taking prescribed medication daily, and A4 is a married person whose wife is pregnant. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 3.4.2026 and are willing to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the police as and when required. It is contended that there is no necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioners and, therefore, they may be granted bail.

4.On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are prima facie allegations against the petitioners. It is further submitted that A5 and A6 are absconding, and some witnesses are yet to be examined.

The investigation is still in progress and has not been completed. It is further contended that, if bail is granted, there is a likelihood of the petitioners absconding from the jurisdiction. Further submitted that, A1 is of criminal nature, and if A1 is granted bail, he may threaten the witnesses. Therefore, the bail application is vehemently opposed.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3

6.The record discloses that the petitioners are involved in a grave offence, with allegations relating to the abetment of the deceased to consume pesticide. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that A5 and A6 are absconding and that some witnesses are yet to be examined. It is further submitted that A1 is of criminal nature, and if A1 is granted bail, he may threaten the witnesses. On perusal of the record, it is disclosed that, so far, 11 witnesses have been examined by the investigating officer. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 were arrested on 03.04.2026 and have been in judicial custody for the past 40 days. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the stage of investigation, and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/A1.

7.The record further discloses that A1 is the main accused, A2 and

A3 are his parents, and A4 is the brother of A1. Taking into consideration the age of petitioners Nos.2 and 3, and also the fact that, although there are general allegations against A4, no specific overt acts are attributed to him, this

Court is of the opinion that the continued detention of A2 to A4 is no longer required. Therefore, this Court finds it to be a fit case to grant bail to petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 4, subject to certain conditions.

8.In the result, the petition as against A1 stands dismissed. The petition is allowed in respect of A2 to A4. Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 4 may be released on bail on executing bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties of like sum each to the satisfaction of I

Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli. Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 4 are directed to attend before respondent twice in a week i.e., on every Sunday and Thursday of every week in between 8.00 AM to 5.00 PM, according to their convenience and sign in the register maintains by respondent for this purpose till the filing of charge sheet. Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 4 are 4 directed to not to leave the city without prior permission of this court and surrender their passport, if any, before this court.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Guntur.

Copy to:

1. The I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

2. The Superintendent, District Jail, Guntur through e-mail “distjail-guntur@ap.gov.in”.

3. The SHO, Atchampeta P.S., Palnadu District.

4. Sri I. Siva Rama Krishna, Advocate or Counsel for petitioners/Accused.

APGU000012252026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: GUNTUR.

Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026

G.W.O.P.No.354/2026

Between:

1. Sadineni Nandeeswari W/o Late Sravan Kumar, aged about 36 years, Hindu, private employee, resident of Door No 2-2, Gottipadu Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District, JCJC Guntur.

2. Sadineni Bharata Lakshmi W/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 57 years, House wife, resident of Door No 2-2, Gottipadu Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District, JCJC Guntur. …Petitioners.

And

NIL… Respondent.

This is an application filed by the petitioners seeking permission to sell the minors’ half share in the petition schedule property, i.e., Flat No.304 in “MOUNT VIEW–2” Apartments, Pedapalakaluru Village, Guntur City, along with an undivided and unspecified share of 44.718 sq. yards, for discharge of the outstanding bank loan over the said property and for the welfare, needs, and necessities of the minors, and to pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice, on which, a fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 is paid under Schedule-II, Article ii of Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

This petition coming on 4.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Anjaneya Prasad, Advocate for petitioner and upon perusing the material placed on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

(1) that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed; 2 (2)that the petitioners are hereby permitted to sell and execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the prospective purchaser, namely, Beesetty Vani, in respect of the shares of the minor wards along with their own shares in the petition schedule property; (3)that the petitioners shall deposit the remaining amount, after clearing the outstanding loan amount due to ICICI Bank, Guntur, in the names of each of the minor wards in any nationalized bank for their benefit, and shall submit proof of such deposit before this Court immediately after execution of the sale deed; (4)) that the petitioners shall utilize the remaining sale proceeds, after clearing the loan amount, arising from the shares of the minor wards solely for their welfare, benefit, education, and future requirements; and (5)that the petitioners shall maintain proper accounts in respect of the sale proceeds relating to the shares of the minor wards from the petition schedule property and shall produce the same before this Court as and when directed.

(6)that each party do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 8thday of May, 2026.

Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

(Petition schedule is hereto attached)

Table of Costs

Description For Petitioner For Respondent

Stamp on Vakalat2-00 CM and FC not filed Stamp on petition10-00

Total costs 12-00 -

(Institution costs)

Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

APGU000008222026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: GUNTUR.

Present: Sri B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026

G.W.O.P.No.230/2026

Between:

Gopidi Sujilakshmi @ Keesari Sujilakshmi D/o Gopidi Narsireddy W/o Keesari Vijay Kumar, aged about 31 yrs, R/o Dr NO.19-16-607, Pooja Enclave, 1st lane, Chaitanyapuri Colony, Guntur. …Petitioner.

And

Keesari Vijay Kumar, aged 40 yrs, Private job, R/o Dr No.19-16-607, Pooja Enclave, 1st lane, Chaitanyapuri colony, Guntur. … Respondent.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking permission to sell the petition schedule properties, including the share of the minor ward, in favour of the prospective purchaser, Ravutla Singaraiah, who entered into Agreements of Sale with the petitioner, and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, on which, a fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 is paid under Schedule-II, Article ii of Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

This petition coming on 1.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Ankamma Rao, Advocate for petitioner and respondent remained exparte and upon perusing the material placed on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

(1) that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed; 2 (2)that the petitioner is hereby permitted to sell and execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of P.W.2 Ravutla Singaraiah in respect of the 1/2 share of the minor ward along with her own share in the petition schedule property.

(3) that the petitioner shall deposit the sale proceeds pertaining to the 1/2 share of the minor ward i.e., an amount of Rs.42,00,000/- in any Nationalized Bank in the name of the minor ward for his benefit and shall submit proof of such deposit before this Court immediately after execution of the sale deed.

(4) that the petitioner shall utilize the sale proceeds only for the welfare, education, benefit, and future necessities of the minor ward.

(5) The petitioner shall maintain proper accounts in respect of the sale proceeds relating to the 1/2 share of the minor ward and produce the same

before the Court whenever directed.

(6)that each party do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 8thday of May, 2026.

Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.

(Petition schedule is hereto attached)

Table of Costs

Description For Petitioner For Respondent

Stamp on Vakalat2-00 CM and FC not filed Stamp on petition10-00

Total costs 12-00 -

(Institution costs)

Sd/- B.Sai Kalyan Chakravarthi,

Principal District Judge, Guntur.