Sri Ch.Raja Gopala Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

Present: Sri Ch.Rajagopala Rao

Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole.

FAC III-Additional District Judge, Ongole

Friday, this the 26th Day of July, 2019.

O.S.37/2018

Between Beera Padmavathi, wife of late Sreedhara Radha Krishna Rao, aged about 73 years, Hindu, Partner of 1st defendant firm, resident of House No.36-92-200/5, Alluru Seetharamaraju Nagar, Kancherapalem Post,

Visakhapatnam-5. .... Plaintiff

And

1.M/s. Chandamama Dairy at S.No.210, Muthyalapadu village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District, represented by its Managing Partner Gottipati Anitha Devi, wife of Srinivasa Rao, aged 32 years, resident of Bimavarappadu village, Saidapet Post, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2.Gottipati Anitha Devi, wife of Srinivasa Rao, aged 32 years, Managing Partner of 1st defendant firm, resident of Bimavarappadu village, Saidapet Post, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

3.Gottipati Penchalamma, wife of Malakondaiah, aged about 58 years, Hindu, resident of Bimavarappadu village, Saidapet Post, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

4.Guduru Rajyalakshmi, wife of Subbarao, aged about 53 years, resident of Ganapavaram village, Karlapalem Mandal, Guntur District. …. Defendants

This suit coming on 09.07.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri MV Krupa Sagar, Advocate for Plaintiff, having the defendants remained, ex- parte, on perusal of material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- from the defendants being the profits earned by the 1st defendant firm from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2017 of which the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are partners, for costs and other reliefs.

2

2.Shorn of details, the plaint allegations are that :

(a)that the 1st defendant is a firm registered under the name and style as M/s.

Chandamama Dairy at S.No.210, Muthyalapadu village, Lingasamudram Mandal,

Prakasam District, under registration No.18/2014 registered before the Registrar of

Firms, Ongole, dated 04.02.2014 represented by its Managing Partner Gottipati

Anitha Devi i.e., the 2nd defendant herein. The plaintiff and the defendants 3 and 4 are the partners of 1st defendant firm as per the Partnership Deed, dated 17.01.2014. As per the partnership deed, the place of business of the partnership shall be at S.No.210 of Muthyalapadu village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam

District. The business of the partnership shall be to carry on in milk procurement, chilling of milk, milk products, butter, cheese etc., As per the Partnership Deed the books of accounts that are usual in this line of business shall be maintained and be closed to profit and loss account on 31st March of every year. The 2nd defendant is the Managing Partner of the firm representing the 1st defendant. The plaintiff being a partner is entitled for 20% of net profit in every year commencing from 31st March, 2014 and the partnership can be determined at will.

(b)It is further averred, that the firm was registered firm as per the Registration

Certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms, Ongole, dated 04.02.2014 under the

Registration of Firm No.18/2014 at Ongole. As per the Registration Certificate the plaintiff is also a partner from 17.01.2014 onwards. The business was commenced from the date, entering into the Partnership Deed from 17.02.2014 and the firm was registered one. It is the duty of the Managing Partner to furnish accounts to all the partners including the plaintiff and given 20% of profit amount to the plaintiff every year by the end of March 31st.

(c)It has been specifically averred, that the defendants 2 to 4 are having close association and they colluded together and not furnishing the accounts to the plaintiff from the year 2014 to 2015 March onwards. The amount due is payable from 31.03.2015 onwards. As per the profit that they have to pay Rs.60,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards the profit from 1st April, 2014 to 31.03.2017 i.e., for three years.

The defendants are not furnishing accounts and screening the accounts.

3

(d)It is further pleaded, that the 2nd defendant is acting detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff with the support of her husband and not at all furnishing the accounts. The plaintiff is a old lady and being residing at Visakhapatnam contacted the 2nd defendant Managing Partner and other partners to furnish the accounts and pay the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards the profit as on date commencing from 1st April, 2014 to 31st March, 2017, for which they represented that they are going to furnish the accounts and pay the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- by the end of December, 2017 but till date the defendants did not pay even a single paise.

(e)It if further pleaded, that the defendants 2 to 4 are misusing the firm business and they are creating spurious and nominal documents and are also planning to manipulate the account books in order to cause loss and hardship to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff further came to know that the defendants are trying to shift the account books from D1 firm premises and also planning to destroy the accounts since 2014 onwards. If they do so the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.

3.Sri M.Raheem Baig, Advocate filed Vakalat on behalf of the defendants and failed to file written statement, D1 to D4 called absent, set ex-parte.

04.To substantiate her case, the Plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 and A2.

05.Heard the counsel for the Plaintiff.

06.Now the point for determination is :

“ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount

as prayed for ? ”

07.Point :

(a)The case of the plaintiff is, that the 1st defendant is a partnership firm dealing in milk and alloyed products registered as such with Registrar of Firms, Ongole, under Ex.A1 of which the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are partners under Ex.A2, among whom the 2nd defendant is the Managing Partner of the firm. As per the 4 partnership deed entered into between the parties, dated 17.01.2014 the accounts are to be looked into on 31st March of every year. The plaintiff being the partner is entitled for 20% of net profit till termination of the partnership at will. The firm commenced its business from the date of partnership deed. Contrary to the terms of the partnership deed, the defendants 2 to 4 in collusion, did not account for the profits of the firm and the plaintiff is entitled for profits for three years at the rate of

Rs.20,00,000/- per year, in all to a tune of Rs.60,000/-.

(b)It is further averred, that the 2nd defendant is acting detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff and the defendants are misusing the firm business and they are trying to create spurious documents and they are even trying to shift the books of accounts from the place of business and are also trying to destroy the accounts of the firm.

(c)To prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 who narrated the facts akin to the plaint pleadings. Chief examination evidence of the plaintiff coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 and the evidence on record left unchallenged as the defendants opted to remain ex parte to the proceedings.

(d)In view of the discussion made above, the oral and documentary evidence is consistent, cogent, remained unchallenged on record in the absence of any rebuttable evidence from the defendants. There is no need to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A1 and A2. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants as prayed for.

08.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendants for an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- with future interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of suit, till realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26 th Day of July, 2019.

Sd/- CH. Raja Gopala Rao

VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

FAC III-Additional District Judge, Ongole

(FTC), ONGOLE.

5

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendants :

P.W.1 : Beera Padmavathi- None-

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1/ Xerox certified copy of acknowledgment of Registration of Firm Ex.A2/Form No.A

For Defendants : - Nil

VIII A.D.J.,

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE

Present: Sri Ch.Rajagopala Rao

Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole.

FAC III-Additional District Judge, Ongole

Friday, this the 26th Day of July, 2019.

O.S.37/2018

Between Beera Padmavathi, wife of late Sreedhara Radha Krishna Rao, aged about 73 years, Hindu, Partner of 1st defendant firm, resident of House No.36-92-200/5, Alluru Seetharamaraju Nagar, Kancherapalem Post,

Visakhapatnam-5. .... Plaintiff

And

1.M/s. Chandamama Dairy at S.No.210, Muthyalapadu village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District, represented by its Managing Partner Gottipati Anitha Devi, wife of Srinivasa Rao, aged 32 years, resident of Bimavarappadu village, Saidapet Post, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2.Gottipati Anitha Devi, wife of Srinivasa Rao, aged 32 years, Managing Partner of 1st defendant firm, resident of Bimavarappadu village, Saidapet Post, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

3.Gottipati Penchalamma, wife of Malakondaiah, aged about 58 years, Hindu, resident of Bimavarappadu village, Saidapet Post, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

4.Guduru Rajyalakshmi, wife of Subbarao, aged about 53 years, resident of Ganapavaram village, Karlapalem Mandal, Guntur District. …. Defendants

The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- from the defendants being the profits earned by the 1st defendant firm from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2017 of which the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are partners, for costs and other reliefs.

Plaint presented on : 22.02.2018 Plaint filed on : 22.02.2018

Cause of action for the suit arose when on 17.01.2014 when the plaintiff entered into the partnership deed, when the 1st defendant firm was registered before the Registrar of Firms, Ongole, when the business was started on 17.01.2014 and the accounts has to be rendered from 31st March, 2015 onwards, when the plaintiff demanded the defendants to furnish accounts and to pay the amount, when the defendants promised to pay the profit of Rs.60,00,000/- to the plaintiff by the end of December, 2017 but the defendants failed to pay the amount, when the defendants are trying to destroy, manipulate the accounts, when the acts of defendants are detrimental to the interests of the plaintiff, when the acts of defendants are detrimental to the interests of the plaintiff, when the plaintiff if filing the suit for recovery of profit amount and for rendition of accounts from 1st April, 2014 to 31st March, 2017, when the firm business is situated at Muthyalapadu village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fees and Jurisdiction is Rs.60,00,000/- being estimated value of net profit of plaintiff’s share in the first defendant business concern, on which a fixed court of Rs.62,426/- is paid under section 20 of APCF and SV Act.

This suit coming on 09.07.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri MV Krupa Sagar, Advocate for Plaintiff, having the defendants remained, ex- parte, on perusal of material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE :

1. that the defendants herein do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit i.e., on 22.02.2018, till realisation.

2. that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.172078/- towards costs of the suit, bearing their own costs of Rs.Nil/- (No CM and FC filed) towards costs of the suit. Costs of the plaintiff :- Rs.172078/-(CM and FC filed) Costs of the defendants:- Rs.Nil/- (No CM and FC filed)

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 26th Day of July, 2019.

Sd/- CH. Raja Gopala Rao,

VIII-Addl. District Judge, Ongole FAC III-Addl. District Judge, Ongole

Table of Costs

For plaintiff:-For Defendants:-

Particulars Amount in Rs.No CM and FC filed Stamp on Vakalat:2.00 Stamp on plaint :62426.00 Stamp on process:200.00 Sr.Advocate fee:89250.00 Jr.Advocate fee:20000.00 Writing and typing charges :200.00 Total :172078.00

Sd/- CH. Raja Gopala Rao,

VIII-Addl. District Judge, Ongole FAC III-Addl. District Judge, Ongole

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE

Present: Sri Ch.Rajagopala Rao

Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole.

FAC III-Additional District Judge, Ongole

Friday, this the 26th Day of July, 2019.

O.S.37/2018

Between Beera Padmavathi, wife of late Sreedhara Radha Krishna Rao, aged about 73 years, Hindu, Partner of 1st defendant firm, resident of House No.36-92-200/5, Alluru Seetharamaraju Nagar, Kancherapalem Post,

Visakhapatnam-5. .... Plaintiff

And

1.M/s. Chandamama Dairy at S.No.210, Muthyalapadu village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District, represented by its Managing Partner Gottipati Anitha Devi, wife of Srinivasa Rao, aged 32 years, resident of Bimavarappadu village, Saidapet Post, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2.Gottipati Anitha Devi, wife of Srinivasa Rao, aged 32 years, Managing Partner of 1st defendant firm, resident of Bimavarappadu village, Saidapet Post, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

3.Gottipati Penchalamma, wife of Malakondaiah, aged about 58 years, Hindu, resident of Bimavarappadu village, Saidapet Post, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

4.Guduru Rajyalakshmi, wife of Subbarao, aged about 53 years, resident of Ganapavaram village, Karlapalem Mandal, Guntur District. …. Defendants

This suit coming on 09.07.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri MV Krupa Sagar, Advocate for Plaintiff, having the defendants remained, ex- parte, on perusal of material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- from the defendants being the profits earned by the 1st defendant firm from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2017 of which the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are partners, for costs and other reliefs.

2

2.Shorn of details, the plaint allegations are that :

(a)that the 1st defendant is a firm registered under the name and style as M/s.

Chandamama Dairy at S.No.210, Muthyalapadu village, Lingasamudram Mandal,

Prakasam District, under registration No.18/2014 registered before the Registrar of

Firms, Ongole, dated 04.02.2014 represented by its Managing Partner Gottipati

Anitha Devi i.e., the 2nd defendant herein. The plaintiff and the defendants 3 and 4 are the partners of 1st defendant firm as per the Partnership Deed, dated 17.01.2014. As per the partnership deed, the place of business of the partnership shall be at S.No.210 of Muthyalapadu village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam

District. The business of the partnership shall be to carry on in milk procurement, chilling of milk, milk products, butter, cheese etc., As per the Partnership Deed the books of accounts that are usual in this line of business shall be maintained and be closed to profit and loss account on 31st March of every year. The 2nd defendant is the Managing Partner of the firm representing the 1st defendant. The plaintiff being a partner is entitled for 20% of net profit in every year commencing from 31st March, 2014 and the partnership can be determined at will.

(b)It is further averred, that the firm was registered firm as per the Registration

Certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms, Ongole, dated 04.02.2014 under the

Registration of Firm No.18/2014 at Ongole. As per the Registration Certificate the plaintiff is also a partner from 17.01.2014 onwards. The business was commenced from the date, entering into the Partnership Deed from 17.02.2014 and the firm was registered one. It is the duty of the Managing Partner to furnish accounts to all the partners including the plaintiff and given 20% of profit amount to the plaintiff every year by the end of March 31st.

(c)It has been specifically averred, that the defendants 2 to 4 are having close association and they colluded together and not furnishing the accounts to the plaintiff from the year 2014 to 2015 March onwards. The amount due is payable from 31.03.2015 onwards. As per the profit that they have to pay Rs.60,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards the profit from 1st April, 2014 to 31.03.2017 i.e., for three years.

The defendants are not furnishing accounts and screening the accounts.

3

(d)It is further pleaded, that the 2nd defendant is acting detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff with the support of her husband and not at all furnishing the accounts. The plaintiff is a old lady and being residing at Visakhapatnam contacted the 2nd defendant Managing Partner and other partners to furnish the accounts and pay the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards the profit as on date commencing from 1st April, 2014 to 31st March, 2017, for which they represented that they are going to furnish the accounts and pay the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- by the end of December, 2017 but till date the defendants did not pay even a single paise.

(e)It if further pleaded, that the defendants 2 to 4 are misusing the firm business and they are creating spurious and nominal documents and are also planning to manipulate the account books in order to cause loss and hardship to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff further came to know that the defendants are trying to shift the account books from D1 firm premises and also planning to destroy the accounts since 2014 onwards. If they do so the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.

3.Sri M.Raheem Baig, Advocate filed Vakalat on behalf of the defendants and failed to file written statement, D1 to D4 called absent, set ex-parte.

04.To substantiate her case, the Plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 and A2.

05.Heard the counsel for the Plaintiff.

06.Now the point for determination is :

“ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount

as prayed for ? ”

07.Point :

(a)The case of the plaintiff is, that the 1st defendant is a partnership firm dealing in milk and alloyed products registered as such with Registrar of Firms, Ongole, under Ex.A1 of which the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are partners under Ex.A2, among whom the 2nd defendant is the Managing Partner of the firm. As per the 4 partnership deed entered into between the parties, dated 17.01.2014 the accounts are to be looked into on 31st March of every year. The plaintiff being the partner is entitled for 20% of net profit till termination of the partnership at will. The firm commenced its business from the date of partnership deed. Contrary to the terms of the partnership deed, the defendants 2 to 4 in collusion, did not account for the profits of the firm and the plaintiff is entitled for profits for three years at the rate of

Rs.20,00,000/- per year, in all to a tune of Rs.60,000/-.

(b)It is further averred, that the 2nd defendant is acting detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff and the defendants are misusing the firm business and they are trying to create spurious documents and they are even trying to shift the books of accounts from the place of business and are also trying to destroy the accounts of the firm.

(c)To prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 who narrated the facts akin to the plaint pleadings. Chief examination evidence of the plaintiff coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 and the evidence on record left unchallenged as the defendants opted to remain ex parte to the proceedings.

(d)In view of the discussion made above, the oral and documentary evidence is consistent, cogent, remained unchallenged on record in the absence of any rebuttable evidence from the defendants. There is no need to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A1 and A2. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants as prayed for.

08.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendants for an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- with future interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of suit, till realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26 th Day of July, 2019.

Sd/- CH. Raja Gopala Rao

VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

FAC III-Additional District Judge, Ongole

(FTC), ONGOLE.

5

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendants :

P.W.1 : Beera Padmavathi- None-

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1/ Xerox certified copy of acknowledgment of Registration of Firm Ex.A2/Form No.A

For Defendants : - Nil

VIII A.D.J.,

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE

Present: Sri Ch.Rajagopala Rao

Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole.

FAC III-Additional District Judge, Ongole

Friday, this the 26th Day of July, 2019.

O.S.37/2018

Between Beera Padmavathi, wife of late Sreedhara Radha Krishna Rao, aged about 73 years, Hindu, Partner of 1st defendant firm, resident of House No.36-92-200/5, Alluru Seetharamaraju Nagar, Kancherapalem Post,

Visakhapatnam-5. .... Plaintiff

And

1.M/s. Chandamama Dairy at S.No.210, Muthyalapadu village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District, represented by its Managing Partner Gottipati Anitha Devi, wife of Srinivasa Rao, aged 32 years, resident of Bimavarappadu village, Saidapet Post, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2.Gottipati Anitha Devi, wife of Srinivasa Rao, aged 32 years, Managing Partner of 1st defendant firm, resident of Bimavarappadu village, Saidapet Post, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

3.Gottipati Penchalamma, wife of Malakondaiah, aged about 58 years, Hindu, resident of Bimavarappadu village, Saidapet Post, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

4.Guduru Rajyalakshmi, wife of Subbarao, aged about 53 years, resident of Ganapavaram village, Karlapalem Mandal, Guntur District. …. Defendants

The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- from the defendants being the profits earned by the 1st defendant firm from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2017 of which the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are partners, for costs and other reliefs.

Plaint presented on : 22.02.2018 Plaint filed on : 22.02.2018

Cause of action for the suit arose when on 17.01.2014 when the plaintiff entered into the partnership deed, when the 1st defendant firm was registered before the Registrar of Firms, Ongole, when the business was started on 17.01.2014 and the accounts has to be rendered from 31st March, 2015 onwards, when the plaintiff demanded the defendants to furnish accounts and to pay the amount, when the defendants promised to pay the profit of Rs.60,00,000/- to the plaintiff by the end of December, 2017 but the defendants failed to pay the amount, when the defendants are trying to destroy, manipulate the accounts, when the acts of defendants are detrimental to the interests of the plaintiff, when the acts of defendants are detrimental to the interests of the plaintiff, when the plaintiff if filing the suit for recovery of profit amount and for rendition of accounts from 1st April, 2014 to 31st March, 2017, when the firm business is situated at Muthyalapadu village, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fees and Jurisdiction is Rs.60,00,000/- being estimated value of net profit of plaintiff’s share in the first defendant business concern, on which a fixed court of Rs.62,426/- is paid under section 20 of APCF and SV Act.

This suit coming on 09.07.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri MV Krupa Sagar, Advocate for Plaintiff, having the defendants remained, ex- parte, on perusal of material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE :

1. that the defendants herein do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit i.e., on 22.02.2018, till realisation.

2. that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.172078/- towards costs of the suit, bearing their own costs of Rs.Nil/- (No CM and FC filed) towards costs of the suit. Costs of the plaintiff :- Rs.172078/-(CM and FC filed) Costs of the defendants:- Rs.Nil/- (No CM and FC filed)

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 26th Day of July, 2019.

Sd/- CH. Raja Gopala Rao,

VIII-Addl. District Judge, Ongole FAC III-Addl. District Judge, Ongole

Table of Costs

For plaintiff:-For Defendants:-

Particulars Amount in Rs.No CM and FC filed Stamp on Vakalat:2.00 Stamp on plaint :62426.00 Stamp on process:200.00 Sr.Advocate fee:89250.00 Jr.Advocate fee:20000.00 Writing and typing charges :200.00 Total :172078.00

Sd/- CH. Raja Gopala Rao,

VIII-Addl. District Judge, Ongole FAC III-Addl. District Judge, Ongole

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION:

ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole]

Present: Smt .M.G. Priayadarshini

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ongole

Dated this 09th day of March 2018

Crlmp No.230/2018

Between:

Petitioner and Advocate

1) Kokkiligadda Venkata Rao Address - Marrichettu colony, Ongole, N/o Devarampadu village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. Advocate- G.Gandhi

Respondent and Advocate

1) SHO women PS Ongole Rep by Public Prosecutor, Ongole Address - Ongole.

/Docket Order//

Made over to the VIIIAddl. District Judge, Ongole for disposal according to law.

Sd/- M.G. Priayadarshini,

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION:

ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole]

Present: Sri G.Chakradhara Rao, B.com., B.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, this the sixth day of February, 2013

CRL.MP.No.99/2013

(in Cr.No.2/2013 of Giddalur P.S.)

Between:

Siraboina Ranganayakulu @ Rangaswamy, s/o. Chinna Rangaiah, Hindu, 28 years, R/o. Kothakota village, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasam District. … Petitioner/accused AND

State S.H.O., Giddalur P.S. rep. by Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Mallikarjuna Reddy, counsel for the petitioner/Accused and the Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent and upon hearing the counsel of both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court made the following: -

O R D E R

This petition has been fled u/sec.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused concerned in Cr.No.2/2013 of Giddalur PS. for the offences u/Secs. 452,36. r/w. 511 of C.P.C.

2.Notice was given to the Public Prosecutor, who opposed to allow the petition.

3.Heard.

4.Point for consideration in this matter is

Whether the petition can be allowed as prayed for?

..Point:-

(a)As seen from the material available on record, on 3.1.2013 at 9.30 p.m., the mother of the complainant went into the village to see 40 days Jarthulu festival and the complainant, her father and brother slept in the house and when they were in sleep the petitioner entered into the house in a drunken state and removed the dupatta covered on the complainant the caught hold of the hand of the complainant and tried to drag her and on observing the alcohol smell the complainant told her father and then he woke up and picked up a stick and on seeing the same the petitioner ran away from there.

(b) Investigation is pending. I see no reasons to grant bail at this stage.

(c)In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the .th day of February, 2013.

PRL. SESSIONS

JUDGE,

ONGOLE Copy to:

1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

2. The S.H.O., Giddalur P.S.

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION:

ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole]

Present: Sri G.Chakradhara Rao, B.com., B.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, this the sixth day of February, 2013

CRL.MP.No.127/2013

(in Cr.No.1/2013 of Chirala II town P.S.] Between:

1.Dara Samson s/o.Kotaiah, aged 26 years, Mala by caste, Mariyampeta, Perala, Chirala (A.1).

2.Kaki Annadora s/o.Sarangam, aged 26 years, Mala by caste, Mariyampeta, Perala, Chirala (A.2)… Petitioners/Accused

AND

State: SHO, Chirala II town Police Station, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners/Accused and Sri I.Venkateswarlu, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent and upon hearing the counsel of both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This second bail application has been fled by the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 under Section 439 Cr.P.C.to grant bail, concerned in Crime No.1/2013 of Chirala II town P.S. for the offence punishable under Sections 446, 354, 50. r/w.34 IPC.

2.Notice is given to the Public Prosecutor, who opposed to grant bail to the petitioners/accused.

3.Heard both sides.

4.Pont for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 can be enlarged

on bail as prayed for?

5.POINT:

(a) As seen from the material on record, it shows that the petitioners are high handed nature and they used to roam in their locality without any job and that the 1st petitioner used to follow the defacto complainant Shaik Khasim Bee and was visiting her house for no cause in the temporary absence of inmates and brought pressure on her to fulfll his lust and when she denied, the 1st petitioner threatened her with dire consequences, and on 04.01.2013, at about 3 PM, when the defacto complainant was at her house, both the petitioners entered into her house, misbehaved with her and tried to catch and on hearing her cries, when the neighbours came there, the petitioners escaped from the house of the defacto complainant.

Basing on the complaint of the defacto complainant, the case was registered.

(b) As seen from the material available on record and as per the contents of the Xerox copy of the charge sheet fled by the petitioner along with a memo, the entire investigation was completed and charge sheet has been fled. Hence, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

..In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail on his executing personal bond for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chirala with a further condition that he shall not cause any coercion, threat or promise to the witnesses connection to this case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the .th day of February, 2013

PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

ONGOLE. Copy to

1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

2. The Station House Ofcer, Chirala II town Police Station. // t.c.f.b.o.//

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

DISTRICT COURT, ONGOLE

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION:

ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole]

Present: Sri G.Chakradhara Rao, B.com., B.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, this the sixth day of February, 2013

CRL.MP.No.125/2013

(in Cr.No.246/2012 of Maddipadu P.S.) Between:

1. Muchha @ Mutchu Anil s/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged 25 years, Auto driver, Vellampalli village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. (A.2).

2. Kondepi Nagarjuna s/o.Subba Rao, aged 21 years, Auto driver, Vellampalli village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District (A.3).… Petitioners/A.2 & A.3

AND

State: SHO, Maddipadu Police Station, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Jr.P.Srinivasulu, Advocate for the petitioners/A.2 & A.3 and Sri I.Venkateswarlu, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent and upon hearing the counsel of both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This second bail application has been fled by the petitioners/A.2 & A.3 under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. to grant bail, concerned in Crime No.246/2012 of Maddipadu P.S. for the offence punishable under Sections 3.. & 36. (iii)(g) r/w.511 & 201 IPC.

2. Notice was given to the Public Prosecutor, who strongly opposed to grant bail as sought for by the petitioners.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Points that arise for consideration are:

Whether the petitioners/A.2 & A.3 can be released on bail as prayed for?

..POINT:

(a)As per material on record, it shows that, on 21.12.2012, at about 10 PM, the victim girl by name Palaparthi Sujatha, aged 19 years boarded the auto of the accused at Vellampalli bus stop along with some passengers for going to her house after completion of her duty and after reached Doddavaram village,

A.1, who works in medical shop in Vellampalli village and two other auto drivers kidnapped her and turned the auto towards the felds at the outskirts of Doddavaram and pulled her from the auto, dragged her in the felds and attempted to commit gang rape against her, and the victim girl struggled with them and escaped from the hands of A.1 to A.3, and the petitioners herein, who are A.4 & A.5 advised A.1 to A.3 and gave amount of

Rs.2000/- and sent them to Ongole and instructed them not to return to village till the matter is settled and thereby screened away the occurrence.

(b)The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that A2 and A3 were arrested on 1.1.2013 and the entire material part of the investigation was completed and prayed to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

(c)As seen from the material on record, it further shows that the victim girl Palaparthi Sujatha boarded the auto at Vellampalli bus stop due to missing of Addanki bus and A.1 & A.2 were there, and when the auto reached Doddavaram village, all the passengers got down except A.1 to A.3 and the victim girl and when auto left Doddavaram village and when reached near

Poleramma temple at Doddavaram village, then A.1 to A.3 kidnapped the victim girl by turning the auto towards felds, dragged her into felds, fell down her on the ground and tried to commit gang rape on her. The victim girl with a great struggle with the accused, could escape from their hands, which shows that the accused not only kidnapped the victim girl, but also attempted to commit gang rape on her and the involvement of the petitioners in this crime is very serious one and hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners in both the petitions.

..I see no changed circumstances from the date of dismissal of the earlier bail application.

6. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court, this the .th day of February 2013.

PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

ONGOLE. Copy to

1. The Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mobile Court, Ongole

2. The Station House Ofcer, Maddipadu Police Station.

Sd/-G.Chakradhara Rao,

// t.c.f.b.o.//

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,

DISTRICT COURT, ONGOLE

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION:

ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole]

Present: Sri C.Purusothamkumar,

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ongole

Dated this 04th day of January 2019

CrlmP No.22/2019

Between:

Petitioner and Advocate

1) Kakula Sridhara Rao Address - R/o Bodavada village,Parchuru Mandal, Prakasam Dt. Advocate- K.Siva Nageswara Rao

Respondent and Advocate

1) SHO Parchuru PS Rep by Public Prosecutor Ongole Address - Parchur.

// Docket Order//

Made over to the VIII Addl. District Judge,Ongole for disposal according to law

Sd/- C.Purusothamkumar

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION:

ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole]

Present: Sri G.Chakradhara Rao, B.com., B.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, this the sixth day of February, 2013

CRL.MP.No.99/2013

(in Cr.No.2/2013 of Giddalur P.S.)

Between:

Siraboina Ranganayakulu @ Rangaswamy, s/o. Chinna Rangaiah, Hindu, 28 years, R/o. Kothakota village, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasam District. … Petitioner/accused AND

State S.H.O., Giddalur P.S. rep. by Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Mallikarjuna Reddy, counsel for the petitioner/Accused and the Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent and upon hearing the counsel of both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court made the following: -

O R D E R

This petition has been fled u/sec.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused concerned in Cr.No.2/2013 of Giddalur PS. for the offences u/Secs. 452,36. r/w. 511 of C.P.C.

2.Notice was given to the Public Prosecutor, who opposed to allow the petition.

3.Heard.

4.Point for consideration in this matter is

Whether the petition can be allowed as prayed for?

..Point:-

(a)As seen from the material available on record, on 3.1.2013 at 9.30 p.m., the mother of the complainant went into the village to see 40 days Jarthulu festival and the complainant, her father and brother slept in the house and when they were in sleep the petitioner entered into the house in a drunken state and removed the dupatta covered on the complainant the caught hold of the hand of the complainant and tried to drag her and on observing the alcohol smell the complainant told her father and then he woke up and picked up a stick and on seeing the same the petitioner ran away from there.

(b) Investigation is pending. I see no reasons to grant bail at this stage.

(c)In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the .th day of February, 2013.

PRL. SESSIONS

JUDGE,

ONGOLE Copy to:

1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

2. The S.H.O., Giddalur P.S.

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION:

ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole]

Present: Sri G.Chakradhara Rao, B.com., B.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, this the sixth day of February, 2013

CRL.MP.No.127/2013

(in Cr.No.1/2013 of Chirala II town P.S.] Between:

1.Dara Samson s/o.Kotaiah, aged 26 years, Mala by caste, Mariyampeta, Perala, Chirala (A.1).

2.Kaki Annadora s/o.Sarangam, aged 26 years, Mala by caste, Mariyampeta, Perala, Chirala (A.2)… Petitioners/Accused

AND

State: SHO, Chirala II town Police Station, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners/Accused and Sri I.Venkateswarlu, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent and upon hearing the counsel of both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This second bail application has been fled by the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 under Section 439 Cr.P.C.to grant bail, concerned in Crime No.1/2013 of Chirala II town P.S. for the offence punishable under Sections 446, 354, 50. r/w.34 IPC.

2.Notice is given to the Public Prosecutor, who opposed to grant bail to the petitioners/accused.

3.Heard both sides.

4.Pont for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 can be enlarged

on bail as prayed for?

5.POINT:

(a) As seen from the material on record, it shows that the petitioners are high handed nature and they used to roam in their locality without any job and that the 1st petitioner used to follow the defacto complainant Shaik Khasim Bee and was visiting her house for no cause in the temporary absence of inmates and brought pressure on her to fulfll his lust and when she denied, the 1st petitioner threatened her with dire consequences, and on 04.01.2013, at about 3 PM, when the defacto complainant was at her house, both the petitioners entered into her house, misbehaved with her and tried to catch and on hearing her cries, when the neighbours came there, the petitioners escaped from the house of the defacto complainant.

Basing on the complaint of the defacto complainant, the case was registered.

(b) As seen from the material available on record and as per the contents of the Xerox copy of the charge sheet fled by the petitioner along with a memo, the entire investigation was completed and charge sheet has been fled. Hence, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

..In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail on his executing personal bond for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chirala with a further condition that he shall not cause any coercion, threat or promise to the witnesses connection to this case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the .th day of February, 2013

PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

ONGOLE. Copy to

1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

2. The Station House Ofcer, Chirala II town Police Station. // t.c.f.b.o.//

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

DISTRICT COURT, ONGOLE

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION:

ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole]

Present: Sri G.Chakradhara Rao, B.com., B.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, this the sixth day of February, 2013

CRL.MP.No.125/2013

(in Cr.No.246/2012 of Maddipadu P.S.) Between:

1. Muchha @ Mutchu Anil s/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged 25 years, Auto driver, Vellampalli village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. (A.2).

2. Kondepi Nagarjuna s/o.Subba Rao, aged 21 years, Auto driver, Vellampalli village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District (A.3).… Petitioners/A.2 & A.3

AND

State: SHO, Maddipadu Police Station, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Jr.P.Srinivasulu, Advocate for the petitioners/A.2 & A.3 and Sri I.Venkateswarlu, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent and upon hearing the counsel of both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This second bail application has been fled by the petitioners/A.2 & A.3 under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. to grant bail, concerned in Crime No.246/2012 of Maddipadu P.S. for the offence punishable under Sections 3.. & 36. (iii)(g) r/w.511 & 201 IPC.

2. Notice was given to the Public Prosecutor, who strongly opposed to grant bail as sought for by the petitioners.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Points that arise for consideration are:

Whether the petitioners/A.2 & A.3 can be released on bail as prayed for?

..POINT:

(a)As per material on record, it shows that, on 21.12.2012, at about 10 PM, the victim girl by name Palaparthi Sujatha, aged 19 years boarded the auto of the accused at Vellampalli bus stop along with some passengers for going to her house after completion of her duty and after reached Doddavaram village,

A.1, who works in medical shop in Vellampalli village and two other auto drivers kidnapped her and turned the auto towards the felds at the outskirts of Doddavaram and pulled her from the auto, dragged her in the felds and attempted to commit gang rape against her, and the victim girl struggled with them and escaped from the hands of A.1 to A.3, and the petitioners herein, who are A.4 & A.5 advised A.1 to A.3 and gave amount of

Rs.2000/- and sent them to Ongole and instructed them not to return to village till the matter is settled and thereby screened away the occurrence.

(b)The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that A2 and A3 were arrested on 1.1.2013 and the entire material part of the investigation was completed and prayed to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

(c)As seen from the material on record, it further shows that the victim girl Palaparthi Sujatha boarded the auto at Vellampalli bus stop due to missing of Addanki bus and A.1 & A.2 were there, and when the auto reached Doddavaram village, all the passengers got down except A.1 to A.3 and the victim girl and when auto left Doddavaram village and when reached near

Poleramma temple at Doddavaram village, then A.1 to A.3 kidnapped the victim girl by turning the auto towards felds, dragged her into felds, fell down her on the ground and tried to commit gang rape on her. The victim girl with a great struggle with the accused, could escape from their hands, which shows that the accused not only kidnapped the victim girl, but also attempted to commit gang rape on her and the involvement of the petitioners in this crime is very serious one and hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners in both the petitions.

..I see no changed circumstances from the date of dismissal of the earlier bail application.

6. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court, this the .th day of February 2013.

PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

ONGOLE. Copy to

1. The Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mobile Court, Ongole

2. The Station House Ofcer, Maddipadu Police Station.

Sd/-G.Chakradhara Rao,

// t.c.f.b.o.//

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,

DISTRICT COURT, ONGOLE

 IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE::ONGOLE

Present: Sri K. Rajkumar,M.Com B.L.

FAST TRACK COURT::0NGOLE

Friday, this the 1 st day of February, 2013

O.S. No. 178/2011

Between: Muvvala Venkateswara Rao s/o M.Sriranganatham Aged about 40 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Durbar Road, ­Chirala, Prakasam District (Which is with in the jurisdiction of the Chirala D.M.C) ­­­Plaintiff.

And 

1. Rajupalepu Umamaheswar Rao S/o late R.Sankara Rao aged about 39 years, Hindu Dr.No.15­11­2012 Paparaju Thota – Chirala, Prakasam District (Which is within the jurisdiction of the Chirala D.M.C) ­­­ Defendants

This suit filed for Specific performance of agreement of sale dt.5­6­ 2011 for Rs.20,00,116/­ executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendant to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the agreement of sale dt.5­6­2011, by receiving balance of sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/­in respect of the plaint schedule property within the time fixed by the Hon'ble court, in case the defendant fails to execute the registered sale deed as directed by the Hon'ble court the Hon'ble court may it self execute the sale deed for and on behalf of the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property at the cost of the plaintiff or alternatively to direct the defendant to return the earnest money of Rs.5,00,116/­ with interest @ 12% P.A from the date of the suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

This suit coming on 01­02­2013 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri.P.Bala Subrahmanyam, Advocate for the plaintiff and of

Sri.K.Srinivasulu, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Suit is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 1st day of February, 2013

V­ ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, F.T.C. :: ONGOLE

Appendix of Evidence

NIL

V­ADJ

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE::ONGOLE

Present: Sri K. Rajkumar,M.Com B.L.

FAST TRACK COURT::0NGOLE

Wednesday, this the4th day of January, 2012

O.S. No. 64/2009

Between: Kavali Raghuveera Kumar S/o Venkateswarlu aged 44 years, Hindu, Employee, Native of Ongole Town Now residing at Esveeaar Distilleries Private Limited, Karakambadi village & Post, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District.­­­Plaintiff.

And 

1. Dasari Narayana Rao S/o Ramakoteswara Rao, Aged about 45 years, Hindu, D.No.23­1­357, Gandhi Road, Ongole Town, Prakasam District

2. Syed Jaffar S/o Saleha, Aged about 51 years, Muslim, R/o 2nd lane, 4th Cross Road, Islampet, Ongole Town ­­­ Defendants

Suit filed for Specific performance to direct the defendants 1 and 12 to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property of the agreement dt.17­06­06 so as to pass effective and better title in favour of the plaintiff or in alternative to direct the defendants to pay the advance of Rs.11,00,000/­ received by the 1st defendant under agreement of sale dt.17­06­2006 with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the receipt of the said acknowledgment into award costs. 

Plaint presented on:27­07­2009 Filed on:04­08­2008

Valuation & Court Fee: The value of the suit is Rs.23,80,000/­ on which a court fee of Rs.26,226/­ is paid U/sec. 39 of APCF & SV Act. 

Cause of Action:­ The cause of action for the suit arose on 17­06­2006 when the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property through an

Agreement of Sale dated 17­06­2006 from the 1st defendant basing on the

G.P.A­cum­agreement of Sale deed dt.25­04­2005 executed by the 2nd defendant and subsequently when the defendants failed to perform his part of contract in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, in spite of legal notices got issued by the plaintiff on 18­06­2009 and when the 1st defendant denied and refused to execute the Registered sale deed basing on the suit agreement of sale through his reply notice dt.26­06­2009 at Ongole

Town within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This suit coming on 4­1­2012 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri.Chunduri Venkata Rao Advocate for the plaintiff and of

Sri.A.Radha Krishna Murthy Advocate, for 1st defendant and 2nd defendant having remained ex­parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made doth order and decree:

1) That the Suit be and the same is hereby dismissed.

2) That there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 4th day of January, 2012.

V­ ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (Fast Track Court) Ongole

Table of Costs

­NIL­

V-ADJ

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE::ONGOLE

Present: Sri Ch.Raja Gopala Rao,

Judge, Family Court, Ongole,

FAC: V­Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

FAST TRACK COURT::ONGOLE.

Wednesday, this the 8 th day of November, 2017

O.S. No. 178/2011

Between: Muvvala Venkateswara Rao s/o M.Sriranganatham Aged about 40 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Durbar Road, ­Chirala, Prakasam District (Which is with in the jurisdiction of the Chirala D.M.C) ­­­Plaintiff.

And 

2. Rajupalepu Umamaheswar Rao S/o late R.Sankara Rao aged about 39 years, Hindu Dr.No.15­11­2012 Paparaju Thota – Chirala, Prakasam District ­­­ Defendants This suit filed for Specific performance of agreement of sale dt.5­6­ 2011 for Rs.20,00,116/­ executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendant to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the agreement of sale dt.5­6­2011, by receiving balance of sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/­in respect of the plaint schedule property within the time fixed by the Hon'ble court, in case the defendant fails to execute the registered sale deed as directed by the Hon'ble court the Hon'ble court may it self execute the sale deed for and on behalf of the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property at the cost of the plaintiff or alternatively to direct the defendant to return the earnest money of Rs.5,00,116/­ with interest @ 12% P.A from the date of the suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

This suit coming on 08­11­2017 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri.P.Bala Subrahmanyam, Advocate for the plaintiff and of

Sri.K.Srinivasulu, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Hence, the suit is dismissed for default without costs.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of November,

2017.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, ONGOLE,

FAC:V­ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAST TRACK COURT, ONGOLE.

Appendix of Evidence

NIL

JUDGE, FC,

FAC:V­ADJ.

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE::ONGOLE

Present: Sri Ch.Raja Gopala Rao,

Judge, Family Court, Ongole,

FAC: V­Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

FAST TRACK COURT::ONGOLE.

Tuesday, this the 14 th day of November, 2017

O.S. No. 190/2011

Between:

1. Pakala Venkata Rao, S/o Venkata Ratnam, Aged 41 years, Hindu, Business, 9th cross Raod, Rajapanagal Rao, Ongole. Prakasam District.

2. Penam Venkateswara Rao, S/o Bhaskara Rao, Aged 47 years, Hindu, Business, Opp.to Pushpa Clinic, Rajapanagal Raod, Ongole, Prakasam District.

3. Kamma Narasimha Rao, S/o Narasaiah, Aged 52 years, Business, Dibbala Raod, Ongole, Prakasam District. ­­­Plaintiffs.

And 

1. Varikunta Anjamma, W/o Radha Krishna Murthy, Aged 55 years, Hindu, House wife, Near Sub Registar Office, S.N. Padu.

2. Varikunta Venkat Krishna, S/o Radha Krishna Murthy, Aged 35 years, Hindu, Tailor, .

3. Varikunta Venkata Naga Parusuram, S/o Radha Krishna Murthy, Aged. 30 years, Driver in APSRTC.

4. Devineni Krishna Rao, S/o Ramaiah, Aged.52 years, Hindu, Business, Sivaji Nagar, Near Gandhi Public School, Mangamuru Raod, Ongole.

5. Chittemsetti Venkata Suresh Babu, S/o Tirupalu, Aged. 30 years, R/o Chinna Ganuga Palem, Addanki. 

6. Utukuri Venkateswara Rao, S/o Doraswamy, Aged. 49 years, Hindu, Business, Ranganayakulapeta, Nellore.

7. Chittemsetti Srinivasa Rao, S/o Venkateswaralu, Aged. 42 years, Hindu, Business, Chinna Ganuga Palem, S.N. padu.

8. Chittemsetti Hari Babu, S/o Prasada Rao, Aged. 40 years, Hindu, Ganuga Palem, Ongole. ­­­ Defendants (D5 to D8 are added as per Orders passed in I.A.1166/2012 dated: 12­03­2013.)

This suit filed for Specific performance of agreement of sale dt.01­11­ 2010 for Rs.1,44,00,000/­ executed by the defendant 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff, 1 to 3 and defendant D4 in respect of the plaint schedule properties, directing defendants 1 to 3 to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and D4 as per the terms of the agreement of sale dt.01­11­2010 after receiving balance of sale consideration of

Rs.1,34,00,000/­ through process of Law and put them in possession and for costs of the suit. 

This suit coming on 14­11­2017 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri.M.Raghava Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.K.Anji

Reddy, Advocate for defendants 1 to 3 and Sri C.Venkateswarlu Advocate for D4 and Sri K.Raghava Rao, Advocate D5 to D8 having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff called absent. No representation from 17­04­2017. Plaintiff has no interest in getting the matter for prosecution. Hence, the suit is dismissed for default without costs.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 14th day of November,

2017.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, ONGOLE,

FAC:V­ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAST TRACK COURT, ONGOLE.

Appendix of Evidence

NIL

JUDGE, FC,

FAC:V­ADJ.