Smt B Soujanya

Junior Civil Judge

Nakrekal, JCJ Court Complex · Nalgonda · Telangana

Smt B Soujanya, Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Nakrekal, JCJ Court Complex, Nalgonda, Telangana, India. 242 court orders on record since 2021. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, JCC cases.

242

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/139/2014

Karnati Sadguru vs Pulijala Amaravathi

20 Aug 2022

Page 1 of 10

OS.No.139 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE (JUVENILE COURT)-

CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT NALGONDA

Present:-Smt.B.Soujanya, Prl.Junior Civil Judge (Juvenile court)-cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda.

(Dated this, the 20th day of August, 2022)

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 139 of 2014

Between: -

Karnati Sadguru,S/o.Ramulu, Age:35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Rudra Ashram, Shivaji Nagar, Chandur village and mandal, Nalgonda District.

..Plaintiff.

And

1. Pulijala Amaravathi, W/o. Yadaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: Household,R/o. Muthyalamma veedi, Deverkonda town, Nalgonda District.

2. Sangepu Harikrishna, S/o. Veeresham, Age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Palakendram, Chandur village and manda, Nalgonda District.

3. Sangepu Narsimha, S/o. Peddaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Near Anjaneya Swamy temple, Bus stand, Chandur village and mandal, Nalgonda District.

…Defendants.

This suit is coming on for final hearing before me on 20-7-2022 in the presence of Sri T.Kiran Kumar , Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. Nukala Narsimha Reddy Advocate for the defendants and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1 The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house plot admeasuring 161.33 sq.yds situated in residential area, New colony, Chandur village and mandal which will be herein after termed as suit schedule property.

Page 2 of 10

OS.No.139 of 2014

2. The brief averments of the plaint is that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under registered sale deed with document no. 763/2014 dated 26-3- 2014 from Ganta Sathaiah for valuable sale consideration. The vendor of the plaintiff in turn purchased the same from Akiti Andamma @ Andalu under registered sale deed with document no.419/2012 dated 4-2-2012.

She in turn acquired the said property from her grand father Sri.

Sangepu Anthaiah by way of registered gift settlement deed with document no. 2162/1993 dated 23-6-1993. The vendor of the plaintiff has delivered vacant possession in favor of the plaintiff. From then he is in continuous possession of the same and dug trenches around the suit schedule property to construct the basement to construct the compound wall.

3. The defendants are the strangers to the suit schedule property and developed eye sore on the same. On 5-7-2014 and 10-7-2014 the defendants along with some unsocial elements tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the same has been opposed and averted the said activity but the chances of interfering are there as such filed the present suit.

4. Upon the registration of the suit, the summons were served upon the defendants who made their appearance through the counsel and filed the written statement.

5. The contents of the written statement are that one Sangepu

Anthaiah was the owner and possessor of the land covered in Sy.No. 40 of Chandur but the alleged gift settlement deed is false and the said plot

Page 3 of 10

OS.No.139 of 2014

itself is unidentifiable with the boundaries mentioned in the gift deed.

They further submitted that Sangepu Anthaiah was pattedar of agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac.6-17 gts in Sy.No.40 situated at

Chandur village and mandal. He executed registered general power of

Attorney with document no.75/1994 dtd 25-5-1994 in favor of Bobbala

Sheshi Rekha and Sangepu Hari Krishna by empowering them to execute sale deeds and other deeds in favor of prospective purchasers in respect of agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac.2-14 ½ gts in Sy.No.40 of

Chandur village and mandal. The GPA holders have converted the said land into plots and sold them to prospective purchasers. The defendants herein had purchased open plot to an extent of 525 sq.yds within

Sy.No.40 residential zone situated at Chandur village and mandal from

Sangepu Anthaiah through G.P.A Holders. The defendant no.1 had been in possession of the plot from the date of acquisition and also constructed basement for the compound wall. He further submitted that as per the boundaries mentioned in the documents of plaintiff the said plot is situated on the western side of the house plot of the defendant intervened by 20’ wide road and presently it is covered by the saw mill and there is no open plot . This defendant had also filed a suit with

O.S.No.360/2014 before the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge court and

obtained temporary injunction for his plot which is suppressed by the plaintiff and thus prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

6. Upon hearing the rival contentions of both sides and perusal of the documents the court has framed the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ?

Page 4 of 10

OS.No.139 of 2014

2. To what relief ?

7. In order to prove their respective contentions plaintiff himself was examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-3. Ex.A-1 is the original registered sale deed with document no.763/2014 dated 26-3-2014. Ex.A- 2 is the registered sale deed with document no.419/2012 dated 4-2- 2012. Ex.A-3 is original registered gift settlement deed with document no.2162/93 dated 23-6-93. Plaintiff examined the attestors of Ex.A-1 and A-2 as PW-2 and PW-3. On behalf of the defendants the defendant no.1 was examined as DW-1 and got marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-4. Ex.B-1 is the CC of the sale deed with document no.4893/96 dated 20-9-1995,

Ex.B-2 is the CC of the General Power of Attorney with document no.75/1994 dated 20-5-1994, Ex.B-3 is the CC of the pahani for the year 1993-1994 and Ex.B-4 is the CC of the pahani for the year 1994-95. He examined an independent witness as DW-2.

8. ISSUE NO.1: The relief sought by the plaintiff against the defendants is for permanent injunction. The grant of permanent injunction is guided by the section 37 of the Specific Relief Act . Sec.

37(2) reads thus “A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the

decree made at the hearing and upon merits of the suit; the

defendant is thereby perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a

right, or from the commission of an act, which would be contrary

to the rights of the plaintiff.”

9. The plaintiff must establish before the court that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and that the defendant is interfering with the rights of the plaintiff.

The plainitff relied upon Ex.A-1 to prove his ownership. The vendor of the

Page 5 of 10

OS.No.139 of 2014

plaintiff got the right under Ex.A-2 and his vendor under Ex.A-3. The title flew from A-3 to A-1 as such the prior document which is to be discussed is Ex.A-3. It is registered gift settlement deed executed by

Sangepu Anthaiah in favor of Akiti Andamma on 23-6-1993 for open plot no.61 in Sy.No.40 to an extent of 161.33 sq.yds. The donee is the grand daughter of the donor. The boundaries of the said plot are:

NORTH : 20’.0” Wide proposed road.

SOUTH : Plot of donor.

EAST: Plot no.62.

WEST : 20’.0 Wide proposed road.

The donor has not mentioned whether the plots were made as per any approved lay out or not as originally the said land is agricultural land.

The said Akiti Andamma sold the plot in favor of Ganta sathaiah under

Ex.A-2 on 4-2-2012. The boundaries of the same plot have been changed under Ex.A-2 which are totally different on 2 sides which are as under.

NORTH : 20’.0” Wide road.

SOUTH : 20’.0” Wide road.

EAST : Plot no.62.

WEST : Plot of others.

The boundaries on the southern and western side have been changed.

The same boundaries were mentioned in Ex.A-1 also. Now the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule annexed to the plaint are as under:

NORTH : 20 feet wide road.

SOUTH : Plot of others.

EAST : Plot no.62.

Page 6 of 10

OS.No.139 of 2014

WEST : 20 feet wide road.

Though the plaintiff mentioned the plot no.62 as one of the boundary but he has not filed any document in proof of such lay out or numbering of the plots. The boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule are same as that of the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A-3. The boundaries of the suit schedule are totally different from that of the boundaries in Ex.A-1 and

A-2. On the contra defendant has explained in his written statement that the suit schedule plot is now not identifiable and they are wrongly claiming the plot of defendant no.1 as that of theirs but in fact the suit schedule plot is on the western side of their plot and at present it is not vacant as pleaded by the plaintiff but there is a saw mill in it. The defendant is also claiming title from Sangepu Anthaiah only but for a different extent under different boundaries. According to the plaintiff the claims of both the parties are for two different plots and different extents.

10. The plaintiff has averred that he was digging trenches for construction of basement to construct the compound wall, but the plaintiff has not filed any document in proof of such construction like photographs or construction permission. Where as defendant has already constructed basement in order to construct the compound wall. The plaintiff himself has wrongly mentioned the boundaries of the suit schedule plot. It is the plaintiff who has to prove before the court that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule plot as on the date of filing of suit and thereafter. There is no evidence placed before the court to prove the said contention. Let us see the admissions made by the plaintiff and his witnesses in this case:

Page 7 of 10

OS.No.139 of 2014

11. PW-1 admitted in her cross examination that he has not seen the lay out plan of that survey number 40. There is no lay out plan annexed to Ex.A-3 gift deed. As per his knowledge said Sangepu Anthaiah has converted the entire extent into plots in 1992,93,94. He also admitted that there is no layout plan to Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2. He further admitted that Anthaiah has executed Ex.B-2 for an extent of in favor of defendant no.2 and Bobbali ShashiRekha who in turn converted said Ac.2-14 ½ gts into plots and sold them to prospective purchasers under registered sale deeds.

12. The sale deed of defendant no.1 is very much prior to Ex.A-1 i.e., 5- 10-1996. He also admitted about filing of the suit by the defendant no.1 herein against them with O.S.No.360/2014 for perpetual injunction

before the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Nalgonda and also obtained

injunction order which is pending against them.

13. PW-2 is the attestor to Ex.A-1 sale deed. He could not depose about the details of the land and pattedars in Sy.No.40. He only saw the link document and the boundaries therein. Undoubtedly the boundaries in

Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 are one and the same but they are different from

Ex.A-3 and the suit schedule. He admitted about the variance in boundaries. PW-2 also admitted about the execution of Ex.B-2. PW-3 is the attestor to Ex.A-2 and he also do not know the actual existing boundaries. PW-4 is the attestor of Ex.A-3 who do not know even about the Ex.A-3 and he is hostile witness.

14. DW-1 clearly stated in her cross examination that the Akiti

Andamma’s plot is on the other side of the road which she has sold to

Page 8 of 10

OS.No.139 of 2014

others. This clearly proves that the property of the plaintiff and defendants are totally different but in same survey number.

15. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the lawful owner and possessor of the suit schedule plot by virtue of Ex.A-1. But the plaintiff is claiming a different property with different boundaries as that of Ex.A-3.

It is very clear that the plaintiff failed to prove before the court that he is in ownership of the suit schedule property within the boundaries mentioned in suit schedule. It is very much evident that the plaintiff is unable to identify the suit schedule property within the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A-1 as such the question of interference by the defendants does not arise. He also admitted that there is no lay out. In a suit of Injunction Simplicitor burden always lies on the plaintiff to prove his lawful possession. The documents relied by the plaintiff are of Ex.A-1 to 3, in which the boundaries are not tallying with each of the document and with that of the suit schedule. More over the defendant no.1 obtained an injunction order against the plaintiff even prior to filing of this suit but the plaintiff who is seeking equity from the court had suppressed the said order given by the higher court and filed this suit.

16. The plaintiff also filed written arguments in which he stated that

DW-2 and 3 admitted about the execution of Ex.A-3 prior to execution of

Ex.B-2. But the defendant clearly explained that the said property covered under Ex.A-3 is different from Ex.B-1. Sangepu Anthaiah after execution of Ex.A-3 in favor of his grand daughter Akiti Anthamma had executed Ex.B-2 for remaining extent which were converted into plots. As such there can be chance of GPA Holder being the attestor of Ex.A-3. The claim of defendant is totally different from the claim of the plaintiff. It is

Page 9 of 10

OS.No.139 of 2014

the plaintiff who has to prove his case but cannot depend on the weakness of the defendant’s case.

17. The plaintiff filed written arguments in which he contended that

Ex.A-3 is prior to Ex.B-2 as such the contention of the defendants that the predecessor of title holder of the plaintiff has no right to alienate the suit schedule property is not tenable. The said pleas is not convincing to the court because plaintiff has not proved before the court that the suit schedule property and the property of the defendant are one and the same. Except survey number nothing is common about the both properties. Defendants on the contra took a strong defense that there is saw mill in the suit schedule plot and the same is on the western side of their plot. Another point for argument for plaintiff is that defendant no.2 is also the attestor of Ex.A-3. But that will not establish the claim of the plaintiff as they are denying about execution of Ex.A-3 but according to them its different plot which is not identifiable. It is very clear from the pleadings as well as the evidence that the plaintiff is not able to identify the suit schedule plot and hence filed the suit. The admissions of DW-2 has been admitted by the defendants also. It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove his case on his own merits . The admissions of DW-2 are as good as the admissions made by PW-4.

18. In view of the above discussion and the foregoing reasons this court is of considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his lawful ownership and possession over the suit schedule property. When the plaintiff also failed to identify his property the question of alleged interference by the defendants does not arise. Issue no.1 is answered accordingly against the plaintiff.

Page 10 of 10

OS.No.139 of 2014

ISSUE NO.2 : In view of the findings given on issue no.1, this issue is answered as plaintiff is not entitled for suit claim.

IN THE RESULT, suit is dismissed with costs.

(Typ ed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the, 20 th of August, 2022).

Prl.Junior Civil Judge (Juvenile court)-cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

PW-1 : Karnati Sadguru DW-1:Pulijala Amaravathi PW-2 : B.Kiran Kumar DW-2:S.Vishnu Murthy. PW-3 : Ganduri Janardhan. PW-4 : Ala Pandaraiah.

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A-1 : Original sale deed with doct.no.763/2014 dtd:26-3-2014. Ex.A-2 : Original sale deed with doct.no.419/2012 dtd:4-2-2012. Ex.A-3 : Original sale deed with doct.no.2162/1996 dtd:23-6-1993.

For Defendant:

Ex.B-1 : CC of registered sale deed with doct.no.4893/1996 dtd:21-9- 1996. Ex.B-2 : CC of registered GPA with doct.no.75/94 dtd : 20-5-1994. Ex.B-3 : Pahani for the year 1993-1994. Ex.B-4 : Pahani for the year 1994-1995.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge (Juvenile court)-cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda.

OS/98/2014

Kothapalli Padhma vs Baddam Krishna Reddy Alias Kista Reddy

04 Aug 2022

Page 1 of 9

OS.No.98 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT NAKREKAL

(Dated this, the 04th day of August, 2022)

Present:- Smt.B.Soujanya, FAC:Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nakrekal.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.98 of 2014

Between: -

Kothapalli Padhma, W/o. Sathaiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Ramanujapuram village, Shaligouraram mandal, Nalgonda district.

...Plaintiff.

And

Baddam Krishna Reddy, @ Kista Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Ramanujapuram village, Shaligouraram mandal, Nalgonda district. …Defendant.

This suit is coming on for final hearing before me on 07-07-2021 in the presence of Sri. P.Shambaiah, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.Sudini Srinivas Reddy Advocate for the defendants and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for perpetual injunction restraining him from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of agricultural land to an extent of 0-35 gts in Sy.No. 203/A situated in Uppalancha village of Shaligouraram mandal which will be here in after termed as “Suit schedule property”.

2. The averments of plaint in brief is that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of Suit schedule property having purchased the same from

Kathula Mallaiah under registered sale deed with document no.780/2003 dated: 9-9-2003 for valuable sale consideration. The revenue authorities have issued pattedar passbooks and title deed before

Page 2 of 9

OS.No.98 of 2014

Andhara Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, Shaligouraram for crop loan.

The defendants are strangers and have no right, title interest or possession over the same but had a malafide intention to grab the Suit schedule property. The plaintiff raised paddy crop in Suit schedule property with the water source as well as bore well and on 30-10-2014 the defendant criminally trespassed into the Suit schedule property, and interfered with the possession of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff could resist the said act with the help of relatives but there is continuous apprehension from defendants and need to protect the Suit schedule property. As such, filed the present suit seeking injunction.

3. Upon registration of the suit the summons were served upon the defendant who made his appearance through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments of plaint and submitted that the defendant is also having Ac.0-35 gts of land in the same Sy.No. along with the plaintiff and he admitted the owner ship and possession of the plaintiff over the Suit schedule property. He further submitted that he is absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land covered in Sy.No. 203 to an extent of Ac.0-35 gts of dry land apart from other lands at

Uppalancha village. The father of defendant acquired the Suit schedule property and other lands through his ancestors and after his demise defendant succeeded the same and has been in continuous possession of the same. The revenue authorities have mutated the said land in his favor and his name is reflected in column no.12 and 13 of pahanies. The revenue authorities have also issued pattedar passbook and title deed in favor of his lands and he raised agricultural loan from Nagarjuna

Grameena Vikas Bank by depositing the original title deed and his

Page 3 of 9

OS.No.98 of 2014

documents would prove his possession and enjoyment over his lands.

The agnate of defendant has sold a piece of land in favor of plaintiff which is totally uncultivable and full of rocks. As such, she is unable to cultivate the same. The land acquired by the defendant is ancestral land and he is getting good yield which has became eyesore to the plaintiff.

She purchased useless uncultivable land and been interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the defendant for which he also filed another suit subsequent to this suit with O.S.No.100/2014 which is pending before the court and the plaintiff is trying to encroach into the land of defendant. As such, prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

4. The court heard both sides and perused the record and framed the following issues for trial:

I) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, if so defendant

is interfering with such possession?

II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as

prayed for?

III) To what relief?

Issue nos. I:

5. In order to substantiate their respective contentions the plaintiff examined herself as Pw.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is original registered sale deed dated: 9-9-2003. Ex.A2 is pattedar passbook. Ex.A3 are Mee seva pahanies for various years from 1420-1424 Fasli. The plaintiff also examined an independent witness who is the neighboring land owner as Pw.2. On behalf of defendant, defendant himself examined as Dw.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. During the

Page 4 of 9

OS.No.98 of 2014

course of arguments the counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff purchased the Suit schedule property under Ex.A1. His name was entered in revenue records under Ex.A3 pahanies fasli at the time of filing of the suit and also that the revenue authorities made due enquiry and issued Ex.A2 pattedar passbook. Subsequently, the defendant though denied formally in the written statement has subsequently admitted in para no.3 of written statement that the plaintiff is only the absolute owner and exclusive possessor of the Suit schedule property and also during the evidence he admitted Ex.A1 to A3. His only contention is that the plaintiff is encroaching into his lands as the lands of plaintiff are uncultivable and filled with rocks. The defendant had not filed any documents in respect of the said contention nor he filed any documents to his ownership of the said extent Ac.-35 gts of land in the same Sy.No. which is after canal. The admission made by Pw.2 is that there is a canal between the land of defendant and suit land is not correct and cannot be treated as admission and not binding on the parties to the suit. He relied upon a citation in 2002 ALHC 506 in which

Hon’ble Apex Court of Allahabad has held that “any admission made by

witness cannot be treated as admission of party and it is not binding on the party who called the said witness on his behalf”. This court is also convinced with the said ruling, in this case in support of his suit. On the other hand the counsel for defendant submitted that the 3 sides boundaries under Ex.A1 sale deed is land of defendant. The plaintiff land is up to canal and defendant documents does not show canal as boundary. There is no cart way but main road i.e, dumber road and that the defendant land is on both sides of the canal. He further submitted

Page 5 of 9

OS.No.98 of 2014

that the plaintiff is not showing canal as boundary but admitted that in the cross examination that southern and northern side boundary there is canal. The plaintiff is claiming property by saying wrong boundaries and that the pleadings and evidence are contradictory. He further submitted that the defendant also filed another suit with O.S.No.100/2014 and the present suit filed for grabbing the lands of defendants and the citation which is filed by the counsel is not suitable to the case facts and which is not the witness but Pw.1 admitted and prayed the court for dismissal of the suit.

6. In order to establish injunction the party who is seeking the injunction must prove before the court the following 3 cardinal principles.

a)Prima facie case.

b)Balance of convenience.

c)Irreparable loss.

7. The plaintiff has to establish before the court that as on the date of filing of the suit the plaintiff is in possession of the Suit schedule property. The issue no.1 framed before the court is also that whether the plaintiff is in possession of the Suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit. The pleadings of plaint is that plaintiff purchased

Suit schedule property in the year 2003 itself under registered sale deed.

The revenue authorities had also made due enquiry and issued pattedar passbook under Ex.A2 and Ex.A1 to A3 were admitted on pleadings with regard to owner ship and possession of the plaintiff was also admitted by the defendant. The defendant on contra had stated that he is the exclusive owner of Ac.0-35 gts land in the same Sy.No. having acquired

Page 6 of 9

OS.No.98 of 2014

the same from his father after his demise, which is ancestral property.

But the defendant had not filed single document in proof of owner ship or possession. Though the defendant claimed his land basing on pattedar pass book and title deed so also boundaries on his name but not filed the same before the court. He also deposed that he filed another suit with

O.S.No. 100/2014 which is subsequent to this case has nothing to do

with the present case. The defendant had also not filed the plaint or written statement of the said suit. The contention is that the defendants lands are on the 3 sides of the plaintiff, it is not been denied by the plaintiff. Ex.A1 clearly shows the boundaries of defendants land and the same is not disputed. So also, that there is one donka i.e., cart way as one of the boundary which is clearly mentioned in the plaint schedule on eastern side. Though, the defendant claims that it is a permanent dumber road had nothing to do with the Suit schedule property and defendant had not filed even single photograph to that effect. The said dumber road or card way is not in the Suit schedule property but it would be one of the boundary i.e, eastern boundary to the Suit schedule property. When the plaintiff and defendant both had pleaded the same that the plaintiff is the owner of Suit schedule property, then nothing remains to further discuss on the point and Ex.A1 to A3 clearly proved

before the court that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the Suit

schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and he is in continuous possession from the date of such acquisition. In respect of her contention plaintiff examined Pw.2 who is the neighboring land owner and he also clearly asserted in chief examination about the owner ship and possession of the same. The cross examination with regard to

Page 7 of 9

OS.No.98 of 2014

the land adjacent to canal with regard to the defendant land has nothing to do with the plaintiff case. The defendant not claiming the land of plaintiff as per his written statement, so also as per his evidence. Dw.1 clearly admitted in the cross examination about Ex.A1 to A3. As such the plaintiff proved Prima facie case in his favor. The revenue entries made under Ex.A3 also established the defacto possession of the plaintiff over the Suit schedule property and the same were made by revenue officials after due enquiry and also issued Ex.A2. Moreover the defendant had not at any point of time denied the possession and owner ship of the same.

His grievance is only that the plaintiff is trying to interfere with the possession over his lands. However, it is the subject matter that will be decided in O.S.No.100/2014. Ex.A3 pahanies for the fasli years 1420- 1424 in respect of the Suit schedule property shows the continuous and undisturbed possession of the plaintiff over the Suit schedule property and the said owner ship and possession is legally having purchased under registered sale deed. As such, the plaintiff has prove prima facie case in her favor.

8. The plaintiff averred in plaint that the defendant is continuously interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Suit schedule property and more specifically on 30-10-2014 when the defendant criminally trespassed into the Suit schedule property and the said apprehension is continuous. The defendant had not only interfered with the possession but also with the right of enjoyment of the plaintiff over the same. If injunction is granted in favor of the plaintiff no harm or prejudice would be caused to the defendant and the plaintiff would be able to protect the Suit schedule property from interference. On the other

Page 8 of 9

OS.No.98 of 2014

hand, if injunction is refused then the apprehension of the plaintiff would come true and the defendant will leave no stones unturned to interfere into the Suit schedule property. The pleadings of plaint and written statement has also brought into light that revenue officers have conducted panchanama and boundary stones were fixed after the purchase of the Suit schedule property and the plaintiff is enjoying the

Suit schedule property within the boundaries mentioned by her in plaint schedule as well as Ex.A1. Though, defendant denied by saying that the

Suit schedule property is in wrong boundaries and the plaintiff purchased in wrong boundaries there is no evidence to that effect.

Except denying the defendant has not placed any cogent and rebuttal evidence nor filed any documents to say that the plaintiff lands is in different boundaries or the plaintiff is claiming the land in wrong boundaries. The defendant not even filed a single document with regard to his own property. As such, this court is of the opinion that the balance of convenience is in favor of the plaintiff and also consequently that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if injunction is refused and no harm would be caused to the defendant if injunction is granted. As such, the plaintiff also proved irreparable loss in her favor. Issue no.1 is answered in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue no. II)

9. In view of the findings given on issue no.1. It is needless to say that the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendant. Issue no.2 is answered in favor of plaintiff.

Page 9 of 9

OS.No.98 of 2014

Issue no. III).

10. In the result:suit is decreed with costs by granting perpetual injunction in favor of plaintiff against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Suit schedule property.

(Dictated to Stenographer, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 04th day of August, 2022).

FAC:Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nakrekal

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1: Kothapelli Padma Baddam Krishna Reddy. PW2: Sama Sathi Reddy.

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex-A1: Original registered sale deed dtd:9-9-2003.

Ex-A2: Original Pattedar pass book.

Ex-A3: Mee Seva Pahanies 5 in number for the fasli year 1420-1424.

For Defendants: -Nill- FAC:Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nakrekal.

OS/193/2020

Kandimalla Pushpalatha vs Kandimalla Raghava Reddy

04 Aug 2022

Page 1 of 5

OS.No.193 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT NAKREKAL

Present: - Smt.B.Soujanya, FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nakrekal (Dated this, the 04th day of August, 2022)

ORIGINAL SUIT No.193 of 2020

Between: -

Kandimalla Pushpalatha, W/o. Satyanarayana Reddy, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chandupatla of Nakrekal mandal, Nalgonda District.

...Plaintiff

And

Kandimalla Raghava Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy, Age: about 54 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chandupatla Village of Nakrekal mandal, Nalgonda District.

... Defendant

This suit is coming on for final hearing on 07-07-2022 in the

presence of Sri.N.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and

defendants No.1 to 6 having remained ex-parte and upon hearing

the counsel for the plaintiff, on perusal of the material on record

and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the

court delivered the following:

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

1. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.

2. The averments of plaint in brief is that plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.0- 0300gts in Sy.No.274, Ac.0-1650gts in Sy.No.277/15, Ac.0-0350gts in

Sy.No.277/UU, Ac.0-0-600gts in Sy.No.278, Ac.1400gts in Sy.No.279,

Ac.0-3500 in Sy.No. 281/15, Ac.0-0700gts in Sy.No.281/AA, Ac.1-

Page 2 of 5

OS.No.193 of 2020

2000gts in Sy.No.287, Ac.0-1400gts in Sy.No.287/E, Ac.0-2000gts in

Sy.No.288, Ac.0-0600gts in Sy.No.289/1, Ac.0-0250gts in Sy.No.291/15, thus total admeasuring Ac.4.2750 gts, situated at Chandupatla revenue village, Nakrekal mandal, Nalgonda district.

4. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule properties to an extent of

Ac.0-06gts, in Sy.No.274, Ac.0-07gts in Sy.No.277, Ac.0-02gts in

Sy.No.278, Ac.0-05gts Sy.No.279, Ac.0-05gts in Sy.No.289, Ac.0-14gts in

Sy.No.281, Ac.0-24gts in Sy.No.287, Ac.1-00gts in Sy.No.288, thus total admeasuring Ac.2-23gts, from one Kandimalla Veera Reddy through

Simple Sale deed in the year 1992. Subsequently the revenue authorities have entered the name of the plaintiff by issuing proceedings dated

H/2815/89 dated 31/12/1992. The remaining extent of the suit schedule property were acquired by the plaintiff from her husband

K.Sathyanarayana Reddy after his death. The name of plaintiff was entered in revenue records to the entire suit schedule property and she had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same and cultivating the lands. The revenue authorities also issued pattedar passbook and after purification of records by Telangana government they have issued digital pattedar passbooks. The name of the plaintiff is also reflected in the pahanies from the years 2008 and 2009 onwards and also ROR, 1-B Namuna is filed in proof of her ownership and possession.

The defendant is the son of the vendor of the plaintiff by name 5.

Kandimalla Veera Reddy the defendant along with Kandimalla Badra

Reddy one of the sons of K.Veera Reddy interfered with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. As such, she gave a report to police, Nakrekal who gave counselling to the defendant and the

Page 3 of 5

OS.No.193 of 2020

defendant assured not to interfere with possession. The said Kandimalla

Badra Reddy died long back. After death of the husband of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself is managing the suit schedule properties as her children are living otherwise for their livelihood. The defendant is resident of same village and distant relative who developed eye sore and asked to sell the property but the plaintiff refused to sell same. As such he is causing interference. On 12-02-2020 when plaintiff is carrying agriculture portion with the help of elder in the Suit Schedule Property defendant interfered with the same and as there is continuous apprehension of interference, she filed the present suit seeking injunction.

6. Upon registration of the suit summons were served and defendant who were called absent on 05-10-2021. As such he Set Ex- parte and the case was posted for Ex-parte evidence.

7. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for?

8. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as

PW1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-3. Ex. A-1 is the Digital Pattedar Pass book cum title deed vide No.728190141168 Katha No.297. Ex.A-2 is the

Pahani for the year 2008-09 issued by Nayab Tahasildar Nakrekal. Ex. A- 3 is the 1-B Namoona (ROR) on 26-02-2020 obtain from Mee Seva.

9. The evidence of PW1 is un-rebutted and admitted. The pleadings of plaint coupled with the oral evidence of PW1, Ex.A-1 to A-3 clearly established before the court that plaintiff is the true owner and

Page 4 of 5

OS.No.193 of 2020

possessor of the suit schedule property and that the defendants are interfering with his possession. If injunction is not granted then the plaintiff could not be able to protect his property from the continuous interference of the defendants. The plaintiff has establish prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favor as such he is entitled for injunction. The evidence of PW1 remained un-rebutted as such this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has proved the suit claim. Point is answered in favor of the plaintiff.

10. In the result:suit is decreed with costs by granting perpetual injunction in favor of the plaintiff by restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

(Dictated to Stenographer, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 04th day of August, 2022).

FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nakrekal.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1:Kandimalla Pushpalatha -Nil-

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A-1: Digital Pattedar Pass book cum title deed vide No.728190141168

Katha No.297.

Page 5 of 5

OS.No.193 of 2020

Ex. A-2: Pahani for the year 2008-09 issued by Nayab Tahasildar

Nakrekal.

Ex. A-3: 1-B Namoona (ROR) on 26-02-2020 obtain from Mee Seva.

For Defendants: - Nil-

FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nakrekal.

OS/558/2021

IDBI Bank, Nalgonda Br., Represented by its Branch Manager vs M/s Usha kiran Colour labs, Nalgonda, rep by is Proprietor Ravirala Satyam

03 Aug 2022

Page 1 of 4

OS.No.558 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE (JUVENILE COURT)-

CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT NALGONDA

Present:-Smt.B.Soujanya, Prl.Junior Civil Judge (Juvenile court)-cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda.

(Dated this, the 3rd day of August, 2022)

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 558 of 2021

Between: - IDBI bank, Nalgonda Br. Rep. By its manager

...Plaintiff

And

1.M/S.Usha Kiran colour labs, Nalgonda rep. By its proprietor Ravirala Satyam, S/o.Ravirala Yadagiri, Aged: 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 74,R.P.Road , Nalgonda.

2.Ravirala Srinivasulu, S/o. Yadagiri, Age: 45 years, R/o. Plot No. 31, Tirumala nagar, Nalgonda.

…Defendants

This suit is coming on for final hearing before me on 18-7-2022 in the presence of Sri D.Amarender Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendants remained exparte and upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1 The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for the relief of recovery of money of Rs.11,52,437/-

2. The brief averments of the plaint is that the plaintiff is the bank having its branch at Nalgonda. On 20-1-2016 the defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff and requested for sanction of cash credit facility loan of Rs.10,00,000/- for his business as working capital for M/S.Usha kiran colour labs, Nalgonda. Defendant no 2 stood as surety. On 20-1- 2016 defendant no.1 has executed demand promissory note in favor of the plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 9.75 P.A..

Page 2 of 4

OS.No.558 of 2021

Both defendants also executed D.P.Note, delivery letter and

Hypothecation cum loan Agreement in favor of plaintiff. Defendant no.2 has executed the guarantee agreement.

3. The plaintiff further submitted that on 15-9-2017 the defendants signed on revised sanction letter for credit facility by executing fresh D.P.

note for Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @11.5% P.A.. They have also executed acknowledgment of debt and confirmation of security on 20-1- 2016 and 25-10-2019 confirming the outstanding balance

Rs.10,03,890/- as on 8-1-2020. The defendant no.1 also agreed to pay 2.25 BPS payable on first day of subsequent month for 12 months.

4. The defendant no.1 has not paid the loan installments On 13-10- 2021 the plaintiff bank issued legal notice to the defendants. They received the said notice on 16-10-2021 and failed to repay the amounts.

The defendants are liable to pay Rs.11,52,437/- as such filed the present suit for recovery of money.

5. Upon the registration of the suit, the summons were served upon the defendants who appeared before the court through their counsel but not filed the written statement within time as such their right to file the written statement was forfeited on 18-4-2022 and the matter was posted for exparte evidence of the plaintiff.

6. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record and the point that arise for consideration is that

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of recovery of money

from the defendants as prayed for “

Page 3 of 4

OS.No.558 of 2021

7. On behalf of the plaintiff, the branch manager of plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-15 . Ex.A-1 is the Loan application dtd: 20-1-2016, Ex.A-2 is sanction letter dated 20-1-2016,

Ex.A-3 is the demand promissory letter, Ex.A-4 is DP Note delivery letter dtd: 20-1-2016, Ex.A-5 is Hypothecation cum Loan agreement dtd :20-1- 2016, Ex.A-6 Common guarantee deed dtd : 20-1-2016, Ex.A-7 is statement of account , Ex.A-8 is revised sanction letter dtd: 15-9-2017,

Ex.A-9 is Fresh demand promissory note dt:25-10-2019, Ex.A-10 is acknowledgment of debt dtd: 8-1-2020, Ex.A-11 is legal notice dtd: 13- 10-2021, Ex.A-12 & A-13 are postal receipts dtd: 14-10-2021, Ex.A-14 &

A-15 are postal acknowledgments dtd: 16-10-2021.

8. The evidence of PW-1 is un rebutted and admitted. The pleadings of the plaint coupled with the oral evidence of PW-1 and Ex.A-1 to A-15 clearly established before the court the suit transaction and the liability of the defendants. The evidence of PW-1 remained un rebutted as such this court is the considered opinion that the plaintiff has proved the suit claim. Point is answered in favor of the plaintiff.

9. In the result, suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.11,52,437/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till date of decree and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

(Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 3 rd of August, 2022.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge (Juvenile court)-cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda

Page 4 of 4

OS.No.558 of 2021

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

PW1 : Anil Kumar Gangavath Exparte

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Loan application dt: 20-1-2016. Ex.A2 : Sanction letter dt : 20-1-2016. Ex.A3 : Demand Promissory note dt: 20-1-2016. Ex.A4 : DP Note delivery letter dtd: 20-1-2016. Ex.A5 : Hypothecation cum loan agreement 20-1-2016. Ex.A6 : Common guarantee deed dtd: 20-1-2016. Ex.A7 : Statement of account. Ex.A8 : Revised sanction letter dtd: 15-9-2017. Ex.A9 : Fresh Demand Promissory note dtd : 25-10-2019. Ex.A10.: Acknowledgment of debt dtd: 8-1-2020. Ex.A11 : Legal notice dtd: 13-10-2021. Ex.A12 : Postal Receipt dtd: 14-10-2021 Ex.A13 : Postal Receipt dtd: 14-10-2021. Ex.A14 : Postal acknowledgment of D.1 dtd: 16-10-2021. Ex.A15 : Postal acknowledgment of D.2 dtd : 16-10-2021

For Defendant:-

Nil.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge (Juvenile court)-cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda.

OS/561/2021

IDBI Bank, Nalgonda Br., Represented by its Branch Manager vs M/s Usha Kiran digital Studio Nalgonda rep by its Proprietor Ravirala Srinivasulu

03 Aug 2022

Page 1 of 4

OS.No.561 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE (JUVENILE COURT)-

CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT NALGONDA

Present:-Smt.B.Soujanya, Prl.Junior Civil Judge (Juvenile court)-cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda.

(Dated this, the 3rd day of August, 2022)

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 561 of 2021

Between: -

IDBI bank, Nalgonda Br. Rep. By its manager

...Plaintiff

And

1.M/S.Usha Kiran colour labs, Nalgonda rep. By its proprietor Ravirala SrinivasuluS/o.Yadagiri, Aged: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot no.31,Tirumala Nagar, Nalgonda.

2.Ravirala Satyam, S/o. Yadagiri, Age: 52 years, R/o. Plot No. 74, R.P.Road, Nalgonda.

…Defendants

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

1 The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for the relief of recovery of money of Rs.11,62,373/-

Page 2 of 4

OS.No.561 of 2021

the plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 9.75% P.A..

Both defendants also executed D.P.Note, delivery letter and

Hypothecation cum loan Agreement in favor of plaintiff . Defendant no.2 has executed the guarantee agreement.

3. The plaintiff further submitted that on 15-9-2017 the defendants signed on revised sanction letter for credit facility by executing fresh D.P.

note for Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @11.85% P.A.. They have also executed acknowledgment of debt and confirmation of security on 20-1- 2016 and 25-10-2018 confirming the outstanding balance

Rs.10,09,691/- as on 8-1-2020. The defendant no.1 also agreed to pay 2.25 BPS payable on first day of subsequent month for 12 months.

The defendants are liable to pay Rs.11,62,373/- as such filed the present suit for recovery of money.

6. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record and the point that arise for consideration is that

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of recovery of money

from the defendants as prayed for “

Page 3 of 4

OS.No.561 of 2021

A-15 are postal acknowledgments dtd: 16-10-2021.

9. In the result , suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.11,62,373/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till date of decree and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

(Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 3rd of August, 2022.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge (Juvenile court)-cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda

Page 4 of 4

OS.No.561 of 2021

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

PW1 : Anil Kumar Gangavath Exparte

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

For Defendant:-

Nil.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge (Juvenile court)-cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda

Order Record 226 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/139/2014	Karnati Sadguru vs Pulijala Amaravathi	20 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
OS/202/2022	Kalina Bouramma W/o. Late Bayyanna vs Kalluri Malla Reddy S/o. Ganga Reddy	20 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
OS/521/2020	IDBI Bank Ltd., Br.Nalgonda rep. by its Br. Manager Spoorthi Reddy vs Jatavath Manga	20 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
OS/98/2014	Kothapalli Padhma vs Baddam Krishna Reddy Alias Kista Reddy	04 Aug 2022	Judgment	—
OS/193/2020	Kandimalla Pushpalatha vs Kandimalla Raghava Reddy	04 Aug 2022	Judgment	—
OS/558/2021	IDBI Bank, Nalgonda Br., Represented by its Branch Manager vs M/s Usha kiran Colour labs, Nalgonda, rep by is Proprietor Ravirala Satyam	03 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
OS/561/2021	IDBI Bank, Nalgonda Br., Represented by its Branch Manager vs M/s Usha Kiran digital Studio Nalgonda rep by its Proprietor Ravirala Srinivasulu	03 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
MC/21/2021	Madapuri Mary vs Madapuri Anand	02 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
OS/100237/2017	Syndicate Bank,Nalgonda Rep.by its Managaer D. Sathyanarayana Reddy vs Peddi Naga Raju	01 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
OS/100240/2017	Syndicate Bank,Br.Nalgonda R/by its Manager D. Sathyanarayana Reddy vs K Naga Ratna	01 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
OS/100284/2017	Syndicate Bank,Br Nalgonda vs Pottumuthu Venkateshwar Rao	01 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
OS/119/2021	Kola Ram Murthy vs Mannem Venkulu	28 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
OS/154/2021	Gajula Anandam vs Narsing Pedda Somulu	28 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/100407/2017	Gunti Srinivas vs Katkuri Dayakar Reddy	27 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
CC/100165/2018	Lingampally Gopal vs Dussa Ashok	26 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/103/2021	Rondi Venkanna vs Ravula Venkanna	21 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
OS/198/2021	Vadlakonda Jyothilaxni vs Nimmala Sugunamma	21 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/36/2013	Nakrekal Police Station vs Vallapu Nagaraju	21 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/82/2015	Kethepally Police Station vs Somagani Srinivas @ Srinivasulu	21 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/373/2014	Shaligouraram Police Station vs Bhupathi Vebkataiah	21 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/409/2014	Kattangur Police Station vs Gorrela Venkatakrishna	21 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/461/2015	Nakrekal Police Station vs Surarapu Ganesh	21 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
OS/318/2015	Shivarathri Iddaiah vs Gurram Yadaiah	20 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/100437/2017	M/s Mahindra Rural Housing Finance company Ltd. vs Vemula Venkateshwarlu and another	20 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
CC/100141/2017	Kasturi Aruna vs Chepuri Srinu	20 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
CC/672/2019	SHO, Nalgonda-I Town vs MA NIzam	19 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
CC/1046/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs KADINGU GOPALA SWAMY	19 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/494/2020	IDBI Bank Ltd., Br.Nalgonda rep. by its Br. Manager Spoorthi Reddy vs M/s. Crazy Mens Wear and Kids Wear, Pro. Miryala Sai Kumar	18 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/100246/2018	Sirikonda Purushotham Raju vs Burugu Venkanna	18 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/1/2020	Adhi Laxmaiah and another vs Bere Anjaneyulu and another	13 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/100282/2018	Pocham Reddy Venkat Reddy vs Dudipala Sagar Reddy and another	13 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
CC/1501/2019	Neelakantam Salamma vs Korra Narender	12 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/600/2021	Merugu Ramesh vs Pankerla @ Devuni Venkataiah	11 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
CC/35/2014	Kattangur Police Station vs Pulipati Bixam	07 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
OS/506/2020	IDBI Bank Ltd., Br. Nalgonda rep. by its Br. Manager Spoorthi Reddy vs Ramavath Parvathi	06 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/555/2021	Bolla Kalpana vs Boyapally Nagabushanam	06 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/269/2020	Veeraboina Lingamma and 1 Other vs Vatte Krishnaiah and 5 Others	04 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/100039/2017	Syndicate Bank,Branch Nalgonda R/its Manager D.Sathyanarayana Reddy vs Itikala Parasa Ramulu	04 Jul 2022	Judgement	—
OS/10/2015	kapil chit funds vs Vssri konda Navanitha	30 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/100152/2018	Syndicate Bank, Branch Nalgonda vs Muqthar Banu and another	27 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
OS/100285/2017	Syndicate Bank, Branch Nalgonda R/by its Manager D. Sathyanarayana Reddy vs Aitipamula Praveen Kumar	27 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
OS/60/2016	Yellemla Ailaiah vs Dappu Somanarsaiah	23 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/237/2021	Gajula Prabhakar vs Narsing Gopi	23 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/322/2014	Kattangur Police Station vs Pendyala upender	23 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/344/2013	Kethepally Police Station vs Mantipally Venkanna	23 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/472/2013	Nakrekal Police Station vs Chittipaka Syamsunder	23 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/9/2015	kapil chit funds vs Vssri shakthi engineering works	16 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/54/2015	Pasunuri Dayakar Reddy vs Avudoddi Lingaiah	16 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/59/2021	Chinthala Narsimha vs Podicheti Yadagiri	16 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/123/2020	KANDIMALLA ANASURYAMMA vs UPPALA CHINNA YADAV REDDY	16 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/38/2014	Nakrekal Police Station vs Vuroju Gopa Chary	16 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/40/2013	Kattangur Police Station vs Bandaru yadaiah	16 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/127/2014	Nakrekal Police Station vs Modugu Narsi reddy	16 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/267/2014	Kethepally Police Station vs Kothapally Kalyan Chakravarthy	16 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/352/2014	Shaligouraram Police Station vs Gunde Kishore	16 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/486/2013	Nakrekal Police Station vs Katta.Edukondalu@Yerukal.Kondalu	16 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/254/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vangala Saidulu	15 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
CC/100455/2017	Doti Akkalaiah vs Dasari Nagaraju and others	14 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
OS/105/2020	Bandari Yadaiah vs Sangapaka Anthaiah	13 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/58/2021	Mannem Yallaiah vs Vutkuri Eadaiah	09 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/73/2020	MALLEBOINA MAHENDRA vs MALLEBOINA YADAIAH	09 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/117/2019	Srirangam Vankat Rangaiah vs Morisetti Sandhya Rani	09 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/118/2019	Srirangam Jhansi@Jhansi Laxmi vs Morisetti Sandhay Rani	09 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/120/2019	Srirangam Eashwar Kumar vs Morisetti Sandhya Rani	09 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/249/2014	Nakrekal Police Station vs Mididoddi Ramachandru	09 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/308/2014	Shaligouraram Police Station vs Deekonda Shekar	09 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/1447/2019	Gopu Satyanarayana vs Mogudala Yadaiah @ Yadagiri	08 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
OS/33/2016	Aluguvelli Swapna vs Mekala Janardhan	08 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/71/2015	Ade Saidulu vs Jammu Sathaiah	07 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/199/2021	Aadirala Srinivas Rao vs Bheemanaboina Lingaiah	07 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/199/2022	Thukkanik Rajinik W/o. Ravi Kumar vs Pinninti Narsi Reddy S/o. Late. Ramaiah @ Ram Reddy	06 Jun 2022	Judgement	—
OS/4/2019	Belli Ashwini vs Bhupathi Lingaiah	06 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/15/2019	Narsing @ Pgula Rajamma vs Pogula Pullaiah	06 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/33/2020	Pagadala Meera Manohar vs Chinthala Saidulu	06 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/100438/2017	State through SI of police, Nlg I town vs Vanguri Rakesh and others	23 May 2022	Judgement	—
CC/100518/2017	Pandula Sravan Kumar vs Gopidi Sridhar Reddy	23 May 2022	Judgement	—
CC/1228/2019	G. Venkat Reddy vs Chenagoni Latchaiah	17 May 2022	Judgement	—
CC/100106/2017	Latheef, PC 3136 Nlg I town. vs Mohd. Burhan and 2 others	17 May 2022	Judgement	—
CC/1540/2019	SHO, Kanagal vs Chanagoni Yadagiri	16 May 2022	Judgement	—
CC/100131/2016	Asst Director of Agriculture vs Kankanam Santosh manohar rao	16 May 2022	Judgement	—
CC/100192/2018	SHO, Nalgonda-I Town vs Sampangi Suresh	10 May 2022	Judgement	—
OS/100127/2017	Nathi Shankar Goud vs Srikolla Laxminarayana	09 May 2022	Judgement	—
OS/107/2020	Mondikathi Yadamma vs Jala Yadagiri and 4 Others	02 May 2022	Judgement	—
OS/456/2021	Korivi Parvathamma vs Kadaboina Narsimha	02 May 2022	Judgement	—
CC/100118/2017	Asst.Director of Agricluture, Suryapet Division vs Mandarapu Prasad	29 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
OS/406/2019	Kukkala Bhadraiah vs Alugubelli Vasantha Reddy	26 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
CC/1387/2019	SHO, Nalgonda-I Town vs Bijili Ramulu	26 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
CC/100213/2017	SHO, Nalgonda-I Town vs Perupaka Vivekananda	26 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
OS/7/2022	Chintha Laxmaiah vs A.Anuradha	25 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
OS/124/2021	Chennoju Padma vs Konda Srilatha	25 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
CC/100408/2018	Asst.Director of Agriculture, Thungathurthy vs Meneni Madhava Rao and another	22 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
CC/100357/2016	Asst.Director of Agriculture, DVK vs M.Dhanujaya and another	19 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
OS/88/2019	Mareddy Srinivas Reddy vs Koppula Bheem Reddy	18 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
CC/100067/2018	Asst.Director of Agriculture, Thungathurthy, vs P.Yadagiri and another	12 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
CC/100242/2017	Gandamalla Srinivas vs Gali Sunil Kumar and another	12 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
CC/100383/2017	Asst.Director of Agriculture, Suryapet Division vs Madgula Rukmadhar and another	12 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
OS/222/2017	Pathi Shobha Rani vs Kalluri Sai Goud	11 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
OS/290/2020	Pattan Valli vs Meka Raju	11 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
OS/615/2021	Somavarapu Prabhakar vs Surineni Agni	11 Apr 2022	Judgement	—
EP/100108/2018	Gadari Sri Devi vs Gottemukkala Mallikarjuna	07 Apr 2022	Order	—

Showing 100 of 226 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Aug 2022		11
Jul 2022		27
Jun 2022		51
May 2022		10
Apr 2022		18
Mar 2022		28
Feb 2022		14
Jan 2022		39
Dec 2021		35
Nov 2021		9

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt B Soujanya handled?

Smt B Soujanya has handled 242 court orders since 2021 at Nakrekal, JCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 24 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt B Soujanya hear?

Based on available records, Smt B Soujanya primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at Nakrekal, JCJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt B Soujanya currently posted?

Smt B Soujanya is posted as Junior Civil Judge at Nakrekal, JCJ Court Complex, Nalgonda, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt B Soujanya available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Smt B Soujanya are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt B Soujanya dispose cases?

Smt B Soujanya disposes approximately 24 cases per month, based on 242 orders handled over their tenure at Nakrekal, JCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt B Soujanya serving?

Smt B Soujanya has been serving at Nakrekal, JCJ Court Complex since 2021.

Case Types

OS 54%

CC 31%

JCC 14%

EP 1%

MC 0%

Posting History

Jun 2022 — Aug 2022

Junior Civil Judge · 57 orders
Oct 2021 — Aug 2022

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, Nalgonda · 185 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Mrs. Neelima Muddasani

Junior Civil Judge

3 orders

Miss S.Manjula

Senior Civil Judge

43 orders

← View all judges at Nakrekal, JCJ Court Complex