Ch. Rama Chandra Murty

II Addl.District Judge Hindupur

II Addl. District Court, Hindupur (Taluka) · Ananthapur · Andhra Pradesh

Ch. Rama Chandra Murty, II Addl.District Judge Hindupur, is posted at II Addl. District Court, Hindupur (Taluka), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,386 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CRLMP, MVOP, EP cases.

1,386

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

AS/17/2017

M.H.Inayathulla vs D.Nagaraju

12 Oct 2018

A.S.17 of 2017 1 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE :: HINDUPUR

Present: Ch. Ramachandra Murthy, II Addl. District Judge, Hindupur

Friday, the 12th day of October, 2018

A.S.No.17/2017

Between :

1.M.H.Inayathulla S/o K.Mohammed Hussain, Aged about 55 years, Muslim, Business, ( Iron Merchant), Resident D.No.17-2-151A, … Appellant/ Parigi Road, Hindupur, Anantapuram Dist. Defendant.

Vs.

1. D.Nagaraju S/o late D.Anjineyulu, aged about 45years, Hindu, Business, Residing in D.No.17-2-151 A, Parigi Road, Hindupur,… Respondent/ Ananthapur Dist. Plaintif

APPEAL PREFERRED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HINDUPUR, DATED 17.01.2017 IN

O.S.No.66/2011 made between

1.D.Nagaraju S/o late D.Anjineyulu, aged about 45years, Hindu, Business, Residing in D.No.17-2-151-A, Parigi Road, Hindupur, … Plaintif. Ananthapur Dist.

Vs.

1.M.H.Inayathulla S/o K.Mohammed Hussain, Aged about 55 years, Muslim, Business, ( Iron Merchant), Resident D.No.17-2-151A,

Parigi Road, Hindupur, Anantapuram Dist. ….. Defendant.

This appeal suit coming on 04.10.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.N.Rahaman Basha, Advocate for Appellant/Defendant and of Sri A.Gopala Krishna, Advocate for the Respondent/Plaintiff, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

A.S.17 of 2017 2 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

1.The appellant is the defendant in O.S.66/2011 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge, Hindupur preferred appeal against the decree and Judgment dated

17.01.2017.

2.For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed

before the trial court.

3. The brief averments of the plaint are that :

Originally the suit property and other properties covered in Sy.No. 147- 18-C, measuring in an extent of Ac.0.42 cents belonged to one Lakshmaiah.

The said Lakshmaiah and his son Subramanyam sold away the said property to R.Yerrappa through a registered sale deed Dated 16.05.1992. In turn

Yerrappa executed a registered General Power of Attorney for part of the suit property measuring 145 feet from each west and 33 feet from north south to one Murali Krishna (PW.2) on 08.02.2011. The remaining property was retained by Yerrappa. In turn the General Power of Attorney holder Murali

Krishna sold away the suit property to the plaintiff ( D.Nafgaraju) through registered sale deed dated 28.02.2011. Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property and defendant is nothing to do with the suit property. The defendant is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. Hence, the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction.

4. Defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint.

He contended that the original owner Yerrappa executed an agreement of sale in favour of one N.N.Sampath Ram on 02.12.1995 and same was cancelled under some unavoidable circumstances. Yerrappa executed an agreement of sale in favour of the defendant on 30.04.2010 by receiving on advance of Rs.7,50,000/-. On failure of Yerrappa executed registered sale deed, the defendant herein filed a suit in OS.59/2011 on the file of Senior

A.S.17 of 2017 3 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

Civil Judge, Hindupur against Yerrappa and the property was delivered

possession to the defendant in pursuance of the said agreement. The defendant has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

Therefore, he request to dismiss the suit with costs.

5 Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial court.

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his right and title over the suit schedule property against the defendant?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property?

3.To what relief?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 to PW.4 were examined and Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.3 were marked. On behalf of the defendant DW.1 was examined, but no documents marked.

7. After hearing both sides on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur came to conclusion that the plaintiff purchased the suit property from General Power of Attorney

Holder of Yerrappa and that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property and defendant had no title over the property. By observing the same the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction was decreed with costs.

8.Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendant preferred the present appeal.

(i) In the grounds of appeal the defendant contended that :

1. The court below failed to appreciate the oral

evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 and failed to consider

A.S.17 of 2017 4 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

the admissions made by PW.1.

2. The court below failed to consider the suit filed by

the defendant for specific performance of

agreement of sale.

3. The court below failed to observe that the General

Power of Attorney holder have no right to convey

the title and do not amount to transfer nor they

can be recognized or valid made by transfer of

immovable properties.

9. Therefore, the defendant requests to allow the appeal and set-aside the said decree and judgment, and dismiss the suit as prayed for.

10. Heard both sides and perused relevant records and written arguments submitted on behalf of the respondent- plaintiff.

11.Now the point for consideration in the present appeal are :

Whether the Decree and Judgment in OS. 66/2011

dated 17.01.2017 of learned Senior Civil Judge,

Hindupur is liable to be set-aside ?

12.POINT :

It is not in dispute that originally the suit property and other property in an extent of Ac.0.42 cents in suit survey No. 147-18C belonged to one

Lakshmaiah. The said Lakshmaiah and his son Subramanyam sold away the said property including the present suit property to one R.Yerrappa through registered sale deed dated 16.05.1992. It is evident from Ex.A.2 Certified

Copy of said sale deed dated 16.05.1992. The main contention of the plaintiff is that the said Yerrappa who is owner of the suit property and other properties executed registered General Power of Attorney in favour of one

B.Murali Krishna on 08.02.2011 and in turn the plaintiff purchased the suit property from General Power of Attorney Holder of the said Yerrappa under

Ex.A.1 sale deed and that he has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

A.S.17 of 2017 5 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

13. The defendant contended that he obtained an agreement of sale dated 30.04.2010 from Yerrappa and purchased the suit property and other properties and he also filed a suit in OS.59/2011 for specific performance of agreement of sale and that the property was delivered possession to him and that he has been in possession over the suit property.

14. The plaintiff examined as PW.1. He deposed that he purchased the suit property under Ex.A.1 from General Power of Attorney holder of Yerrappa and that he has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property. He denied a suggestion that Yerrappa executed an agreement of sale in favour of the defendant long prior to date of Ex.A.1 and delivered possession of the property to the defendant and that the defendant laid fencing for the suit property as on the date of Ex.A.1. He denied a suggestion that he has no right and title over the suit property. He also denied a suggestion that

Yerrappa never executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Murali

Krishna.

15. PW.2 is General Power of Attorney holder of R.Yerrappa, he deposed that he obtained General Power of Attorney from Yerrappa and sold away the suit property to the plaintiff under Ex.A.1. Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property. He took delivery of possession of the suit property from Yerrappa. Yerrappa also affixed his signature on Ex.A.1 sale deed. He hand over the sale consideration to Yerrrappa on the next day of the sale deed. He does not know whether Yerrappa executed an agreement of sale in favour of the defendant. He denied a suggestion that he colluded with the plaintiff and Yerrappa and created Ex.A.1 and General Power of Attorney.

The suggestion itself shows that Yerrappa executed General Power of

Attorney in favour of PW.2.

A.S.17 of 2017 6 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

16. Pw.3 deposed that plaintiff purchased the suit property and plaintiff has been in possession over the suit property. He does not know survey number of the suit property. He saw plaintiff and defendant and their men covered in the suit property in the year 2011. Plaintiff erected fencing around the suit property. The said fencing removed in the year 2011. He denied a suggestion that he is deposing false.

17. Pw.4 also deposed that plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property. He denied a suggestion that defendant erected fencing around the suit property and defendant has been possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

18. Defendant alone examined as DW.1. He deposed that he purchased the suit property from Yerrappa through an agreement of sale on 30.04.2010 and he has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property in pursuance of agreement of sale. He do not file any documents to prove his possession over the suit property in pursuance of agreement of sale. He filed suit in OS.59/2011 for specific performance of agreement of sale. He got mentioned in the suit in OS.59/2011 that the plaintiff herein and one

Nagaraju obtained sale deeds from Yerrappa. He does not who executed sale deed under Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff. He does not know how Yerrappa got the suit property. Ex.A.2 bears photo graph of Yerrappa. He admitted that in OS.59/2011, he also seek the relief of delivery of possession of the property.

19. He did not obtain encumbrance certificate at the time of execution of agreement of sale. He denied a suggestion that Yerrappa never executed any agreement of sale in his favour and that he created agreement of sale and filed the suit in OS.59/2011 and that he is not in possession and enjoyment over the suit property. Yerrappa delivered possession of the property to him.

A.S.17 of 2017 7 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

On oral permission given by Yerrappa, he has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property. He did not choose to produce any record evidencing his possession over the suit property in pursuance of agreement of sale.

20. As argued by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff, as per suggestions put to plaintiff witnesses, it is clear that defendant is not denying the execution of General Power of Attorney by Yerrappa in favour of V.Murali

Krishna. It was suggested to PW.2 that he colluded with Yerrappa and created General Power of Attorney and Ex.A.1 sale deed. Yerrappa is alive but he did not come forward denying the execution the execution of General

Power of Attorney in favour of PW.2. The defendant did not choose to examine Yerrappa, to prove the agreement of sale of the year 2010 and delivery of the possession of the property to him inpursuance of the said agreement. The oral evidence of defendant as DW.1 is not sufficient to prove his possession over the suit property. The evidence of DW.1 alone is not sufficient to come to conclusion that Yerrappa sold away the property to the defendant by executing an agreement of sale. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be said that the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

21. On the other hand PW.2 categorically deposed that Yerrappa executed

General Power of Attorney in his favour in respect of the suit property and other property and inturn he sold away the suit property to the plaintiff under

Ex.A.1. Nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of PW.1 to PW.4 to disprove their evidence. As observed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, plaintiff has got better title over the suit property in pursuance of Ex.A.1

Registered sale deed. The oral evidence of DW.1 alone is not sufficient to prove the possession and enjoyment over the suit property and to prove the alleged agreement of sale execurted by Yerrappa in his favour.

A.S.17 of 2017 8 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

22. The learned Advocate for the defendant argued that no title passes in pursuance of General Power of Attorney and the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is not valid. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision reported in Suraj Lamp & Industries Private Limited Vs. State of

Yaryana and Another [2012] SCCR 4 (SC), wherein while dealing with the subject on Transfer of Property through agreement of sale cum General

Power of Attorney, it was observed that the agreement of sale cum General

Power of Attorney does not convey any title nor created any interest in an immovable property. Immovable property. Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/ conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance-

Transactions of nature of ‘GPA sales’ or ‘SA/GPA/WILL transfers’ do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valied mode of transfer of immoveable property”.

23. The principles laid down in the above decisions are not disputed. In the present suit, Yerrappa executed only General Power of Attorney in favour of PW.2 M.V.Murali Krishna, authorizing him to deal with the suit property, including authorizing him to sell the property. PW.2-M.V.Murali Krishna did not purchase the suit property through agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney. He only obtained registered General Power of Attorney. On perusal of Ex.A.1 Sale deed, it is clear that PW.2 Murali Krishna sold away the property on behalf of Yerrappa as General Power of Attorney Holder only, but not as owner of the suit property. Therefore, the above decision is not applicable to the present set of facts as PW.2 Murali Krishna did not execute

Ex.A.1 sale deed in his individual capacity. He executed the same as an agent of Yerrappa in pursuance of registered General Power of Attorney dated 08.02.2011. Taking into consideration of oral and documentary evidence, I hold that the above decision is not applicable to the present set of facts. The

A.S.17 of 2017 9 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

plaintiff deemed to be in possession and enjoyment over the suit property as he got legal title over the property through registered sale deed in Ex.A.1 executed by PW.2. Though, the defendant contended that he has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property, as per his evidence, he also seek the relief of delivery of possession of the property in suit in

OS.59/2011 filed by him for specific performance of an agreement of sale.

24. Taking into consideration of oral and documentary evidence, I hold that the defendant failed to prove his possession over the suit property and he also failed to prove the purchase of the suit property through the agreement of sale from Yerrappa. The learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly came to the conclusion and decreed the suit. I do not find any ground to disturb the finding recorded by the court below. Said finding is valid and justified and same is liable to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal with costs.

25.IN THE RESULT, the appeal preferred by the defendant in O.S.66/2011 against the decree and Judgment dated 17.01.2017 on the file of learned

Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, is hereby dismissed with costs by confirming the

said decree and Judgment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12th day of October, 2018.

II Additional District Judge Hindupur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined on both sides

-Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF BOTH SIDES

-Nil-

A.S.17 of 2017 10 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

II Additional District Judge, Hindupur.

AS/17/2017

M.H.Inayathulla vs D.Nagaraju

12 Oct 2018

A.S.17 of 2017 1 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE :: HINDUPUR

Present: Ch. Ramachandra Murthy, II Addl. District Judge, Hindupur

Friday, the 12th day of October, 2018

A.S.No.17/2017

Between :

1.M.H.Inayathulla S/o K.Mohammed Hussain, Aged about 55 years, Muslim, Business, ( Iron Merchant), Resident D.No.17-2-151A, … Appellant/ Parigi Road, Hindupur, Anantapuram Dist. Defendant.

Vs.

1. D.Nagaraju S/o late D.Anjineyulu, aged about 45years, Hindu, Business, Residing in D.No.17-2-151 A, Parigi Road, Hindupur,… Respondent/ Ananthapur Dist. Plaintif

APPEAL PREFERRED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HINDUPUR, DATED 17.01.2017 IN

O.S.No.66/2011 made between

1.D.Nagaraju S/o late D.Anjineyulu, aged about 45years, Hindu, Business, Residing in D.No.17-2-151-A, Parigi Road, Hindupur, … Plaintif. Ananthapur Dist.

Vs.

1.M.H.Inayathulla S/o K.Mohammed Hussain, Aged about 55 years, Muslim, Business, ( Iron Merchant), Resident D.No.17-2-151A,

Parigi Road, Hindupur, Anantapuram Dist. ….. Defendant.

J U D G M E N T

A.S.17 of 2017 2 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

1.The appellant is the defendant in O.S.66/2011 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge, Hindupur preferred appeal against the decree and Judgment dated

17.01.2017.

2.For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed

before the trial court.

3. The brief averments of the plaint are that :

Originally the suit property and other properties covered in Sy.No. 147- 18-C, measuring in an extent of Ac.0.42 cents belonged to one Lakshmaiah.

The said Lakshmaiah and his son Subramanyam sold away the said property to R.Yerrappa through a registered sale deed Dated 16.05.1992. In turn

4. Defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint.

A.S.17 of 2017 3 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

Civil Judge, Hindupur against Yerrappa and the property was delivered

possession to the defendant in pursuance of the said agreement. The defendant has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

Therefore, he request to dismiss the suit with costs.

5 Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial court.

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his right and title over the suit schedule property against the defendant?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property?

3.To what relief?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 to PW.4 were examined and Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.3 were marked. On behalf of the defendant DW.1 was examined, but no documents marked.

8.Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendant preferred the present appeal.

(i) In the grounds of appeal the defendant contended that :

1. The court below failed to appreciate the oral

evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 and failed to consider

A.S.17 of 2017 4 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

the admissions made by PW.1.

2. The court below failed to consider the suit filed by

the defendant for specific performance of

agreement of sale.

3. The court below failed to observe that the General

Power of Attorney holder have no right to convey

the title and do not amount to transfer nor they

can be recognized or valid made by transfer of

immovable properties.

9. Therefore, the defendant requests to allow the appeal and set-aside the said decree and judgment, and dismiss the suit as prayed for.

10. Heard both sides and perused relevant records and written arguments submitted on behalf of the respondent- plaintiff.

11.Now the point for consideration in the present appeal are :

Whether the Decree and Judgment in OS. 66/2011

dated 17.01.2017 of learned Senior Civil Judge,

Hindupur is liable to be set-aside ?

12.POINT :

It is not in dispute that originally the suit property and other property in an extent of Ac.0.42 cents in suit survey No. 147-18C belonged to one

B.Murali Krishna on 08.02.2011 and in turn the plaintiff purchased the suit property from General Power of Attorney Holder of the said Yerrappa under

Ex.A.1 sale deed and that he has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

A.S.17 of 2017 5 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

Yerrappa never executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Murali

Krishna.

The suggestion itself shows that Yerrappa executed General Power of

Attorney in favour of PW.2.

A.S.17 of 2017 6 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

A.S.17 of 2017 7 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

21. On the other hand PW.2 categorically deposed that Yerrappa executed

General Power of Attorney in his favour in respect of the suit property and other property and inturn he sold away the suit property to the plaintiff under

A.S.17 of 2017 8 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

Yaryana and Another [2012] SCCR 4 (SC), wherein while dealing with the subject on Transfer of Property through agreement of sale cum General

Power of Attorney, it was observed that the agreement of sale cum General

A.S.17 of 2017 9 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

OS.59/2011 filed by him for specific performance of an agreement of sale.

25.IN THE RESULT, the appeal preferred by the defendant in O.S.66/2011 against the decree and Judgment dated 17.01.2017 on the file of learned

Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, is hereby dismissed with costs by confirming the

said decree and Judgment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12th day of October, 2018.

II Additional District Judge Hindupur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined on both sides

-Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF BOTH SIDES

-Nil-

A.S.17 of 2017 10 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

II Additional District Judge, Hindupur.

AS/16/2017

M.H.Inayathulla vs V.Pavan Kumar

12 Oct 2018

A.S.16 of 2017 1 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE :: HINDUPUR

Present: Ch. Ramachandra Murthy, II Addl. District Judge, Hindupur

Friday, the 12th day of October, 2018

A.S.No.16/2017

Between :

1.M.H.Inayathulla S/o K.Mohammed Hussain, Aged about 55 years, Muslim, Business, ( Iron Merchant), Resident D.No.17-2-151A, … Appellant/ Parigi Road, Hindupur, Anantapuram Dist. Defendant.

Vs.

1. V.Pavan Kumar S/o V.Ramakrishna, Aged about 26 years, Hindu, Business, Residing D.No.26-4-936A, Thyagaraj Nagar, Hindupur,… Respondent/ Anantapur Dist. Plaintiff.

APPEAL PREFERRED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HINDUPUR, DATED 17.01.2017 IN

O.S.No.67/2011 made between

1.V.Pavan Kumar S/o V.Ramakrishna, Aged about 26 years, Hindu, Business, Residing D.No.26-4-936A, Thyagaraj Nagar, Hindupur, … Plaintiff. Anantapur Dist.

Vs.

1.M.H.Inayathulla S/o K.Mohammed Hussain, Aged about 55 years, Muslim, Business, ( Iron Merchant), Resident D.No.17-2-151A,

Parigi Road, Hindupur, Anantapuram Dist. ….. Defendant.

This appeal suit coming on 04-10-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.N.Rahaman Basha, Advocate for Appellant/Defendant and of Sri A.Gopala Krishna, Advocate for the Respondent/Plaintiff, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

A.S.16 of 2017 2 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

1.The appellants are the defendant in O.S.67/2011 on the file of Senior

Civil Judge, Hindupur preferred appeal against the decree and Judgment

dated 17.01.2017.

2.For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed

before the trial court.

3. The brief averments of the plaint are that :

Originally the suit property and other properties covered in Sy.No. 147- 18-C measuring in an extent of Ac.0.42 cents belonged to one Lakshmaiah.

The said Lakshmaiah and his son Subramanyam sold away the said property to R.Yerrappa through a registered sale deed Dated 16.05.1992. In turn

Krishna sold away the suit property to the plaintiff ( V.Pavan Kumar) through registered sale deed dated 21.02.2011. Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property and defendant is nothing to do with the suit property. The defendant is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. Hence, the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction.

4. Defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint.

A.S.16 of 2017 3 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

Civil Judge, Hindupur against Yerrappa and the property was delivered

possession to the defendant in pursuance of the said agreement. The defendant has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

Therefore, he request to dismiss the suit with costs.

5 Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial court.

1.Whether the plaintiff is having right and title over the suit schedule property ?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 to PW.4 were examined and Ex.A.1 &

Ex.A.2 were marked. On behalf of the defendant DW.1 was examined, but no documents marked.

8.Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendant preferred the present appeal.

(i) In the grounds of appeal the defendant contended that :

1. The court below failed to appreciate the oral

evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 and failed to consider

A.S.16 of 2017 4 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

the admissions made by PW.1.

2. The court below failed to consider the suit filed by

the defendant for specific performance of

agreement of sale.

3. The court below failed to observe that the General

Power of Attorney holder have no right to convey

the title and do not amount to transfer nor they

can be recognized or valid made by transfer of

immovable properties.

9. Therefore, the defendant requests to allow the appeal and set-aside the said decree and judgment, and dismiss the suit as prayed for.

10. Heard both sides and perused relevant records and written arguments submitted on behalf of the respondent- plaintiff.

11.Now the point for consideration in the present appeal are :

Whether the Decree and Judgment in OS. 67/2011

dated 17.01.2017 of learned Senior Civil Judge,

Hindupur is liable to be set-aside ?

12.POINT :

It is not in dispute that originally the suit property and other property in an extent of Ac.0.42 cents in suit survey No. 147-18C belonged to one

B.Murali Krishna on 08.02.2011 and in turn the plaintiff purchased the suit property from General Power of Attorney Holder of the said Yerrappa under

Ex.A.1 sale deed and that he has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

A.S.16 of 2017 5 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

Yerrappa never executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Murali

Krishna.

The suggestion itself shows that Yerrappa executed General Power of

Attorney in favour of PW.2.

A.S.16 of 2017 6 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

On oral permission given by Yerrappa, he has been in possession and

A.S.16 of 2017 7 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

enjoyment over the suit property. He did not choose to produce any record evidencing his possession over the suit property in pursuance of agreement of sale.

21. On the other hand PW.2 categorically deposed that Yerrappa executed

General Power of Attorney in his favour in respect of the suit property and other property and inturn he sold away the suit property to the plaintiff under

Ex.A.1. Nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of PWs1 to PW.4 to disprove their evidence. As observed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, plaintiff has got better title over the suit property in pursuance of Ex.A.1

A.S.16 of 2017 8 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

21. The learned Advocate for the defendant argued that no title passes in pursuance of General Power of Attorney and the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is not valid. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision reported in Suraj Lamp & Industries Private Limited Vs. State of

Yaryana and Another [2012] SCCR 4 (SC), wherein while dealing with the subject on Transfer of Property through agreement of sale cum General

Power of Attorney, it was observed that the agreement of sale cum General

22. The principles laid down in the above decisions are not disputed. In the present suit, Yerrappa executed only General Power of Attorney in favour of

PW.2 M.V.Murali Krishna authorizing him to deal with the suit property including authorizing him to sell the property. PW.2-M.V.Murali Krishna did not purchase the suit property through agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney. He only obtained registered General Power of Attorney. On perusal of Ex.A.1 Sale deed, it is clear that PW.2 Murali Krishna sold away the property on behalf of Yerrappa as General Power of Attorney Holder only, but not as owner of the suit property. Therefore, the above decision is not applicable to the present set of facts as PW.2 Murali Krishna did not execute

A.S.16 of 2017 9 II A.D.J.Court, Hindupur

he got legal title over the property through registered sale deed in Ex.A.1 executed by PW.2. Though, the defendant contended that he has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit property, as per his evidence, he also seek the relief of delivery of possession of the property in suit in

OS.59/2011 filed by him for specific performance of an agreement of sale.

23. Taking into consideration of oral and documentary evidence, I hold that the defendant failed to prove his possession over the suit property and he also failed to prove the purchase of the suit property through the agreement of sale from Yerrappa. The learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly came to the conclusion and decreed the suit. I do not find any ground to disturb the finding recorded by the court below. Said finding is valid and justified and same is liable to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal with costs.

24.IN THE RESULT, the appeal preferred by the defendant in O.S.67/2011 against the decree and Judgment dated 17.01.2017 on the file of learned

Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, is hereby dismissed with costs by confirming the

said decree and Judgment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12th day of October, 2018.

II Additional District Judge Hindupur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined on both sides

-Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF BOTH SIDES

-Nil-

II Additional District Judge, Hindupur.

MVOP/34/2017

Kodikonda Hindyathulla vs S.Anjineyulu

12 Oct 2018

O.P. 34/20171 MACT, Hindupur

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ::

HINDUPUR

(Before the Additional District Judge, Hindupur)

Present: Ch.Ramachandra Murthy, II Addl. District Judge

Friday, the 12th day of October, 2018

Original Petition No.34 of 2017

Between :

1.Kodikonda Hidayathulla, Age 40 years, S/o K.C.Abdul Rawoof Sab, Driver, R/o D.No.2- 461, Vinayaka Nagar, Gorantla, Ananthapur ...............Claimant District. (A.P).

Vs.

1.S.Anjineyulu S/o Narasimhulu, Driver of Lorry Bearing Red. No.AP-04-X3266, R/o Kadiri Town, Anantapuram District.

2.Venkata Subba Reddy Bommi Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, R/o Theluru, Thummalapalli, Thandur, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, Owner of the Lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-04-X 3266

3.Shiram General Life Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, Sree Gopala Auto Stores, Maruthi

Nagar, Near RTC Bus Stand, Kadapa Town & .............Respondents

District, A.P.

This petition is coming up for final disposal before me on 26.09.2018 in the presence of Sri B.S.Rami Reddy, Advocate for the claimant, and of Sri K.C.Raghunatha Reddy, Advocate for R.3, R.1 & R.2 set exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

1.Petitioner filed claim application u/s.166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) for the injuries received by him in the accident, with the following averments :-

(i) The petitioner is aged about 40 years, working as driver and earning

Rs.12,000/- per month. On 20.08.2016 at about 6.00 AM while the petitioner driving Eicher Van Reg. No. KA.01.AD.8904 near Bachalaiahpalem Cross in

O.P. 34/20172 MACT, Hindupur

Madakasira Mandal, at that time Respondent No.1 who is driver of Lorry bearing

No.AP04.X.3266 drove the same with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Eicher Van. As a result of which petitioner sustained grievous injury on his right leg and other parts of the body. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Hindupur, where surgery was made and removed the leg under Arogya Sree Scheme and he was discharged after five days. He spent Rs.2,000/- for treatment and took two months treatment weekly once in Balaji Nursing home and spent Rs.1,000/- towards doctor fee and medical expenses. Likewise nearly for three months treatment he has taken and he spent huge amounts nearly about Rs.1,00,000/- including travelling expenses. The petitioner is unable to walk and he is unable to attend his personal work without assistance.

A case was registered in Cr.No.70/2016 by the Madakasira Police Station.

The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Lorry.

Therefore, the respondents who are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation as claimed by the petitioner. Hence the petition.

2. The 1st respondent who is driver and 2nd respondent who is owner of offending vehicle set exparte.

3.The 3rd respondent/insurance company filed written statement denying the averments in the petition. They contended that the petitioner was negligent at the time of accident and that the driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent. They denies the medical expenses. They contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence and that the claim is excessive. Therefore, the respondent request to dismiss the petition.

4.On the Strength of above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

O.P. 34/20173 MACT, Hindupur

(i) Whether the accident was happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Lorry bearing No. AP04.X.3266 ?

(ii) Whether the driver of the offending Lorry bearing No. AP04.X.3266 Possessed valid driving licence as on the material date of accident ?

(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, and if so to what extent and from which of the respondent ?

(iv) To what relief ?

5.On behalf of the petitioner, petitioner K.Hidayathulla, himself examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. PW.2. Dr. R.Balaji who treated the injured and issued disability certificate.

Ex.A.1:-Attested copy of First Information Report in 70/2016 by the Madakasira Police Station Ex.A.2:-Attested copy of wound certificate Ex.A.3:-Attested copy of Disability Certificate issued by Dr.Balaji, Hindupur Ex.A.4:-Attested copy of Insurance Particulars of the crime vehicle Ex.A.5:-Attested copy of driving licence of the drier of the crime vehicle Ex.A.6:-Admission and Discharge Certificate Ex.A.7:-R.C.of the crime vehicle bearing Red. No.AP04.X.3266 Ex.A.8:-Driving licence of the petitioner.

6.On behalf of respondents, no evidence was adduced and no documents were marked.

7.Heard both sides and perused relevant records.

8.ISSUE No.1 :

(1) Whether the accident was happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Lorry bearing No. AP04.X.3266 ? It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is owner, and 3rd respondent is Insurer of offending Lorry bearing No.

AP04.X.3266. It is evident from Ex.A.1 First Information Report and Ex.A.7

Registration Certificate and Ex.A.5.Driving licence of respondent No.1. It is also

O.P. 34/20174 MACT, Hindupur not in dispute that the 1st respondent drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner, due to which the petitioner sustained injuries. It is evident from Ex.A.1 First Information Report,

Ex.A.2 Wound Certificate.

9.The learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that the 1st respondent who drove the offending vehicle at the time of accident, was negligent and caused injuries to the petitioner. The 1st respondent did not adduce any evidence and did not produce any material to prove that the he did not drive the offending vehicle with rash and negligent manner. The 3rd respondent/ insurance company contended that 1st respondent was not negligent. They did not choose to adduce any evidence to prove the manner of accident.

10.On the other hand, PW.1 categorically deposed that 1st respondent who drove the offending vehicle, dashed the petitioner, due to which petitioner received injuries. He denied a suggestion that the driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent at the time of accident. The respondents did not choose to adduce any contrary evidence to disprove the evidence of PW.1.

Taking into consideration of the available material, it can safely be held that the 1st respondent was negligent in causing injuries to the petitioner. Hence, I answered the issue accordingly.

11.Issue No.2

(ii) Whether the driver of the offending Lorry bearing No. AP04.X.3266 Possessed valid driving licence as on the material date of accident ?

The 3rd respondent did not choose to produce any evidence that the driver of the offending Lorry did not possess valid driving licence. Hence, I hold that the driver of the offending Lorry possessed valid driving licence on the material date of accident. Hence, I find issue accordingly.

O.P. 34/20175 MACT, Hindupur

12. Issue Nos.3 :-

(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, and if so to what extent and from which of the respondent?

As per Ex.A.2 wound certificate, petitioner received the following injury.

Complete amputation of right lower leg, which is grievous in nature.

In order to prove the above injury, petitioner examined PW.2 Orthopedic

Surgeon. PW.2 deposed that he examined the petitioner on 20.08.2016.

Petitioner sustained crush injury left lower limb. There was no chance of salvaging the limb, hence below knee amputation was done. On 21.09.2016, he examined the petitioner and issued disability certificate in Ex.A.3. He assessed disability as 80 %, which is permanent. The petitioner will have difficulty in doing labour work. He denied a suggestion that the disability is only 60 %.

Nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of PW.2.

13. Taking into consideration of medical evidence, I hereby award Rs.60,000/- towards pain and sufferings.

14. The petitioner did not choose to file any medical bills to claim compensation under the head of medical expenses. Petitioner claimed compensation under the head of permanent disability. PW.2 assessed disability

as 80 %, as there was amputation of limb below knee. Nothing has been

elicited from the cross-examination of PW.2, to disprove the assessment of 80 % disability. Hence, I hold that the petitioner sustained 80 % permanent disability due to amputation of his leg below the knee.

15. Petitioner is a Lorry Driver and he earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Due to amputation of limb, the petitioner cannot drive the vehicles. Petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that he used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month as

Lorry driver. In the absence of any such evidence, it would be proper to fix his monthly income as Rs.3,000/-. ( Rs.3,000/- x 12 = Rs.36,000).

O.P. 34/20176 MACT, Hindupur

16. As per medical record the petitioner was aged 40 years as on the date of accident. The appropriate multiplier is ‘15’. The total loss of future earnings due to permanent disability comes to Rs.4,32,000/- [ Rs.36,000/- x 15 x 80 /100 = 4,32,000/-].

17. The compensation awarded to the petitioner is as follows:

1.Pain and sufferingsRs. 60,000-00

2.Loss of future earningsRs.4,32,000-00

Total Rs.4,92,000-00

18.Issue No.4 :

(iv) To what relief?

In view of my finding on issues 1 to 3, the petition is allowed partly by granting compensation of Rs.4,92,000/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety two thousand only) to the claimant with proportionate costs and with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

19.IN THE RESULT, the claim of the claimant is hereby partly allowed with costs awarding Rs.4,92,000/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety two thousand only) to the claimant against the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of this petition till the date of deposit.

The petitioner is entitled to withdraw entire amount along with accrued interest.

Awarded amount shall be deposited within one month. The Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12th day of October, 2018.

Chairman,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMANTS TRIBUNAL,

HINDUPUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

O.P. 34/20177 MACT, Hindupur

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANT

PW.1:-K.Hidayathulla PW.2:- Dr. R.Balaji

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANT

Ex.A.1:-Attested copy of First Information Report in 70/2016 by the Madakasira Police Station Ex.A.2:-Attested copy of wound certificate Ex.A.3:-Attested copy of Disability Certificate issued by Dr.Balaji, Hindupur Ex.A.4:-Attested copy of Insurance Particulars of the crime vehicle Ex.A.5:-Attested copy of driving licence of the drier of the crime vehicle Ex.A.6:-Admission and Discharge Certificate Ex.A.7:-R.C. of the crime vehicle bearing Red. No.AP04.X.3266 Ex.A.8:-Driving licence of the petitioner.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE 2 nd

RESPONDENT

- NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF 2 nd RESPONDENT

- NIL -

Chairman,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMANTS TRIBUNAL,

HINDUPUR.

MVOP/66/2017

Smt. Lakshmamma vs M.Rajendra Prasad

12 Oct 2018

O.P.66/20171 MACT, Hindupur

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ::

HINDUPUR

(Before the Additional District Judge, Hindupur)

Present: Ch.Ramachandra Murthy, II Addl. District Judge

Friday, the 12th day of October, 2018

Original Petition No.66 of 2017

Between :

1.Smt. Lakshmamma, W/o Narasimha Reddy, 55 years, House Wife, Doranalapalli, village, H/o Marasanapalli, Chilamathuru Mandal. ...............Claimant

Vs.

1.M.Rajendra Prasad S/o M.Narasimhulu, Major, D.No.3-1-54, Main Road, Pulivendula, Kadapa District.

2.Mandla Nagana s/o Yellappa, Major, D.No.4-5- 198, Vivekananda Colony, Pulivendula, Kadapa District.

3.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Rept. by its Manager, Rept. by its Manager, 2/194-2 , Dhobi Got Road, Lakshmi Ranga Theatre Road, Kadapa.

4.S.Baba Vali, S/o S.basha, D.No.6/19, Rotarypuram, Pulivendula, YSR kadapa-

.............Respondents

516390.

This petition is coming up for final disposal before me on 25.09.2018 in the presence of Sri C.Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate for the claimant, and of Sri K.C.Raghunatha Reddy, Advocate for R.3, R.1, R.2 & R.4 set exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

1.Petitioner filed claim application u/s.166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) for the injuries received by him in the accident, with the following averments :-

(i) The petitioner is aged about 55 years, House wife & cultivation and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. On 11.09.2016 while the petitioner was standing near Ananda Wine Bar, NH7, TB Cross to go to her village, at that time Car

O.P.66/20172 MACT, Hindupur bearing No. AP28 DC 1890 came from Anantapur side driven by respondent

No.2 in rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner received grievous injuries and that the petitioner was admitted in MS

Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore and Pro Life Multi Specialty Hospital, Bangalore and under gone operation of her leg. The petitioner became permanent disabled and bed ridden and became burden to her family members. The petitioner spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenditure.

A case was registered in Cr.No.258/2016 by the Bagepalli Police Station. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle bearing

No. AP28 DC 1890. Therefore, the respondents who are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation as claimed by the petitioner. Hence the petition.

2. The respondents, 1, 2 and 4 who are owners and driver of offending vehicle set exparte.

4.On the Strength of above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

(i) Whether the accident was happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Shift Car bearing No. AP28 DC 1890?

(ii) Whether the driver of the offending Shift Car bearing No. AP28 DC 1890 Possessed valid driving licence as on the material date of accident ?

(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, and if so to what extent and from which of the respondent ?

O.P.66/20173 MACT, Hindupur

(iv) To what relief ?

5On behalf of the petitioner, petitioner Lakshmamma herself examined as

PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. PW.2. Dr. R.Balaji who treated the injured and issued disability certificate.

Ex.A.1:-True copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.258/2016 by the Bagepalli Police Station. Ex.A.2:-Translated copy of First Information Report Ex.A.3:-Refer letter of Doctor of Bagepalli Govt. Hospital. Ex.A.4:-Discharge Summary of Pro Life Multi Specialty Hospital, Bangalore Ex.A.5:-True copy of Insurance Ex.A.6:-Medical Intimation Ex.A.7:-Medical Bills Ex.A.8:-X-rays three in number. Ex.A.9:-Disability certificates Ex.A.10:-X-ray films.

6.On behalf of respondents, no evidence was adduced and no documents were marked.

7.Heard both sides and perused relevant records.

8.ISSUE No.1 :

1) Whether the accident was happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Shift Car bearing No. AP28 DC 1890 ?

It is not in dispute that the 1st and 4th respondents are the owners ,2nd respondent is driver, 3rd respondent is Insurer of offending Shift Car bearing

No. AP28 DC 1890. It is evident from Ex.A.1 & A.2 First Information Reports. It is also not in dispute that the 2nd respondent drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner, due to which the petitioner sustained injuries. It is evident from Ex.A.1 First Information

Report, Ex.A.3 Doctor letter.

O.P.66/20174 MACT, Hindupur

9.The learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that the 2nd respondent who drove the offending vehicle at the time of accident, was negligent and caused injuries to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent did not adduce any evidence and did not produce any material to prove that the he did not drive the offending vehicle with rash and negligent manner. The 3rd respondent/ insurance company contended that 2nd respondent was not negligent. They did not choose to adduce any evidence to prove the manner of accident.

10.On the other hand, PW.1 categorically deposed that 2nd respondent who drove the offending vehicle, dashed her, due to which she received injuries. She denied a suggestion that the driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent at the time of accident. The respondents did not choose to adduce any contrary evidence to disprove the evidence of PW.1. Taking into consideration of the available material, it can safely be held that the 2nd respondent was negligent in causing injuries to the petitioner. Hence, I answered the issue accordingly.

11.Issue No.2

(ii) Whether the driver of the offending Shift Car bearing No. AP28 DC 1890 Possessed valid driving licence as on the material date of accident ?

The 3rd respondent did not choose to produce any evidence that the driver of the offending Shift Car did not possess valid driving licence. Hence, I hold that the driver of the offending Shift Car possessed valid driving licence on the material date of accident. Hence, I find issue accordingly.

12. Issue Nos.3 :-

(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, and if so to what extent and from which of the respondent?

As per records, the petitioner received fracture of tibia and fibula leading to knee stiffness and restriction of ankle moments, which is grievous in nature. In order to prove the above injuries, the petitioner examined PW.2

O.P.66/20175 MACT, Hindupur

Orthopedic Surgeon. He deposed that the petitioner underwent surgery at

Bangalore. On 03.08.2016 he examined the petitioner and issued disability certificate in Ex.A.9. He also took X-rays in Ex.A.10. The petitioner will have difficulty in walking. She needs walker throughout her life and cannot take part in activities of daily living without support from other persons. There is knee stiffness and restriction of ankle moments due to fracture of Tibia and Fibula.

He disability as 20 %, which is permanent. He denied a suggestion that disability is not more than 10 % and that he is deposing false. Nothing has been elicited from his cross-examination to disprove his evidence.

13 Taking into consideration of medical evidence, I hereby award Rs.35,000/- towards pain and sufferings.

14. Petitioner also claimed compensation under the head of medical expenses covered under Ex.A.8 bunch of medical bills. Nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of PW.1 to disprove the medical bills. Taking into consideration of the medical bills covered under Ex.A.8, I hereby award Rs.

1,27,302/- towards medical expenses.

15. The petitioner is aged 55 years. As per evidence of Pw.1, she is doing cultivation and earning Rs.10,000/- . But she did not produce any record to that effect. In the absence of any such evidence, it would be proper to fix her monthly income as Rs.4,000/-. The annual income comes to Rs.48,000/- [ 12 x 4000/-]. The appropriate multiplayer is ‘11’. Taking into consideration of the age of the petitioner, I hereby fix the permanent disability as 10 % instead of 20 %. The total compensation towards loss of earnings due to permanent disability comes to Rs. 52,800/- [48,000/- x 11 x 10 / 100= Rs.52,800./- ]

The rest of the claim is hereby rejected.

16.The compensation awarded to the petitioner is as follows:

1.Pain and sufferingsRs. 35,000-00

O.P.66/20176 MACT, Hindupur

2.Medical expensesRs. 1,27,302-00

3.Loss of future earningsRs. 52,800-00

Total Rs. 2,15,102-00

17.Issue No.4 :

(iv) To what relief?

In view of my finding on issues 1 to 3, the petition is allowed partly by granting compensation of Rs.2,15,102/- (Rupees two lakhs fifteen thousand one hundred and two only) to the claimant with proportionate costs and with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

18.IN THE RESULT, the claim of the claimant is hereby partly allowed with costs awarding Rs. 2,15,102/- (Rupees two lakhs fifteen thousand one hundred and two only) to the claimant against the respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of this petition till the date of deposit.

The petitioner is entitled to withdraw entire amount along with accrued interest.

Awarded amount shall be deposited within one month. The Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12th day of October, 2018.

Chairman,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMANTS TRIBUNAL,

HINDUPUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANT

PW.1:-Lakshmamma

PW.2:- Dr. R.Balaji

O.P.66/20177 MACT, Hindupur

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANT

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

- NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

- NIL -

Chairman,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMANTS TRIBUNAL,

HINDUPUR.

Order Record 1,353 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
AS/16/2017	M.H.Inayathulla vs V.Pavan Kumar	12 Oct 2018	judgement	—
AS/17/2017	M.H.Inayathulla vs D.Nagaraju	12 Oct 2018	judgement	—
MVOP/34/2017	Kodikonda Hindyathulla vs S.Anjineyulu	12 Oct 2018	order	—
MVOP/66/2017	Smt. Lakshmamma vs M.Rajendra Prasad	12 Oct 2018	order	—
MVOP/106/2015	C.A.Adinarayana Reddy vs K.Venkatramudu	12 Oct 2018	order	—
OS/1/2015	K.Pallavi vs K.rajagopal	12 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/66/2018	L.Ramakrishna vs Uppara Lakshminarayana	12 Oct 2018	judgement	—
AS/124/2016	A.V.Anuradha vs K.S.Balachandra	11 Oct 2018	judgement	—
EP/8/2015	MS Shriam Equipment Finance Co., Ltd., vs MS N.N. Constructions Rep. by Mr. D.Narayana so	11 Oct 2018	other	—
EP/375/2017	M/S Shriram City Union finance limited vs S.Shabana	11 Oct 2018	other	—
EP/601/2016	Ms Shriram Transport Finance vs Gaggturi Salman Bhanu	11 Oct 2018	other	—
MVOP/3/2017	Zareen Thaj vs A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep by Manager	10 Oct 2018	order	—
MVOP/63/2017	G.Thippe Swamy vs Y.B.Nagaraju	10 Oct 2018	order	—
MVOP/107/2017	Dudekula Musthafa vs Shaik Abdul Rahiman	10 Oct 2018	order	—
OS/44/2014	C.Ramesh vs B.C Ananadappa	09 Oct 2018	judgement	—
MVOP/96/2016	A.Ajay Reddy nextfriend Adinarayanareddy vs A.Sadique	08 Oct 2018	order	—
EP/481/2016	mS sHRIAM tRANSPORT fINANCE COMPANY lIMITED vs Subba Reddy	05 Oct 2018	other	—
EP/1025/2017	Indus Bank Ltd. vs Shaik chand Basha	05 Oct 2018	other	—
MVOP/61/2017	Posa Sreenivas vs V.V.Prathap Reddy	05 Oct 2018	order	—
OS/8/2008	D.A.Santosh Kumar vs D.G.Anand Murthy	05 Oct 2018	judgement	—
CRLA/23/2013	S.Riyaz vs P.Haji Abdul Ghani	05 Oct 2018	judgement	—
AS/101/2016	Chikka Rangappa vs Chinnappa	04 Oct 2018	judgement	—
EP/1022/2017	Indusind Bank Ltd., vs Mr. Kuruba Chikkanna	04 Oct 2018	order	—
MVOP/48/2018	J.Narayana rao vs China pillappagari Narasimha Murthy	03 Oct 2018	order	—
OS/24/2012	Mohammed Usman vs H.Narayanappa	03 Oct 2018	judgement	—
OS/9/2014	N.Krupakar Reddy vs V.Thippa Reddy	01 Oct 2018	judgement	—
EP/26/2018	M/S shrirak Transport Fianance Ltd. vs K.Hanumantharayappa	28 Sep 2018	other	—
CRLA/69/2017	S.Ramakrishna Reddy vs P.Praveen kumar	28 Sep 2018	other	—
CRLA/151/2017	K.Venkatesh Reddy vs S.H.O Hinduour II Town P.S	28 Sep 2018	judgement	—
AS/10/2016	M.Thimma Reddy vs M.Rami Reddy	27 Sep 2018	decree	—
AS/10/2016	M.Thimma Reddy vs M.Rami Reddy	27 Sep 2018	judgement	—
CRLA/158/2017	A.Shankar Reddy vs S.H.O Chilamathur P.s.	27 Sep 2018	judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/970/2018	Vadde Kranthi Kumar vs S.H.O Railway police Station Hindupur	27 Sep 2018	other	—
AS/13/2016	B.Manjunath vs H.Vijay	26 Sep 2018	judgement	—
AS/13/2016	B.Manjunath vs H.Vijay	26 Sep 2018	decree	—
AS/128/2016	Kariyappagari Gujjarapa vs Mariyannagari Nagaraju	26 Sep 2018	judgement	—
AS/108/2016	k.Ramakrishna reddy vs M.N.Nagaraju	25 Sep 2018	judgement	—
OS/2/2015	K.Venkatadri vs M. Mahammed Rafee	25 Sep 2018	other	—
OS/31/2012	Baggadi Ganesh vs K.Thimappa	25 Sep 2018	judgement	—
AS/67/2016	nagarathnamma vs Vsobulamma	24 Sep 2018	judgement	—
AS/89/2017	P.V. Krishna Reddy vs B.N. Balachandra Reddy	24 Sep 2018	judgement	—
EP/229/2017	Induslnd Bank Ltd. rep.by Deputy Manager vs N.R.Kristappagari Manjunath Kumar	24 Sep 2018	order	—
EP/568/2016	Ms Shriram Transport Finance vs G.N.Ravindra Reddy	24 Sep 2018	order	—
EP/579/2016	MS.Shri ram Transport finance Co. Ltd vs M.Aejaz Basha	24 Sep 2018	order	—
EP/590/2016	Ms Shriram Transport Finance vs E.Muthalappa	24 Sep 2018	order	—
MVOP/59/2017	V.Eswaramma vs K.Sreenivasa Reddy	22 Sep 2018	other	—
AS/31/2016	Smt.G.Alivelamma vs Hanif Sab	20 Sep 2018	decree	—
AS/31/2016	Smt.G.Alivelamma vs Hanif Sab	20 Sep 2018	judgement	—
AS/92/2016	Smt. G.Alivelamma vs The Sunni Iamiya Masjid rep by its Muthavali Hanee	20 Sep 2018	judgement	—
AS/92/2016	Smt. G.Alivelamma vs The Sunni Iamiya Masjid rep by its Muthavali Hanee	20 Sep 2018	decree	—
MVOP/68/2017	P.Narasimha Murthy vs P.M.Arifulla Mohammed Arif	20 Sep 2018	order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/953/2018	Yerrakkagari Narasimhappa vs S.H.O Somandepalli P.s.	20 Sep 2018	other	—
EP/228/2017	Indusind Bank Ltd Office No.115 116 vs G.Prasad	19 Sep 2018	other	—
EP/229/2017	Induslnd Bank Ltd. rep.by Deputy Manager vs N.R.Kristappagari Manjunath Kumar	19 Sep 2018	other	—
MVOP/17/2016	T.Ramnjaneyulu vs B.J.Suresh Babu	19 Sep 2018	order	—
MVOP/43/2017	B.Anji vs D.Prbhakar	19 Sep 2018	order	—
MVOP/85/2016	Y.Sumalatha vs K.Anil Kumar	19 Sep 2018	order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/942/2018	C.N.Gayatri vs S.H.O Somandepalli P.s.	19 Sep 2018	other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/945/2018	Pavitra vs S.H.O Gudibanda P.s.	19 Sep 2018	other	—
AS/87/2016	R.Synappa vs K.Jawaharlal Reddy	18 Sep 2018	judgement	—
AS/91/2016	T.Gayathramma vs P.Vali Sab	18 Sep 2018	judgement	—
AS/133/2016	Mahalingappa died vs Kariyanna died	18 Sep 2018	judgement	—
MVOP/5/2017	S.Anjina Reddy vs A.P.State Road Trransport Coportaion	18 Sep 2018	order	—
MVOP/98/2017	SakeKullayappa vs T.Mahaboob Basha	18 Sep 2018	order	—
OS/51/2015	m.Gowramma vs Vsm.Gangadri	18 Sep 2018	other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/919/2018	Smt. Sindu vs S.H.O Somandepalli P.S.	18 Sep 2018	other	—
AS/12/2015	S.N.Jaya Simha vs S.Sathyanarayanaiah	17 Sep 2018	judgement	—
CMA/22/2016	R.Lakshmikantha vs K.Narasappa	17 Sep 2018	order	—
MVOP/45/2017	P.Anjineyulu vs P.Venugopal Reddy	17 Sep 2018	order	—
A.R.B.O.P/56/2013	The Govt of A.P rep by the Dist Coolector vs K.Mahaboob Khan	17 Sep 2018	order	—
A.R.B.O.P/56/2013	The Govt of A.P rep by the Dist Coolector vs K.Mahaboob Khan	17 Sep 2018	decree	—
AS/14/2016	Smt. Sarojamma vs Smt. Indiramma	12 Sep 2018	judgement	—
EP/25/2018	SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FIANCE CO.LTD vs K.Vali Basha	12 Sep 2018	order	—
EP/573/2016	Ms Shriram Transport Finance vs R.Radhika	12 Sep 2018	other	—
OS/48/2018	T.V. Ravikumar vs Y.Hariparasad	12 Sep 2018	judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/919/2018	Smt. Sindu vs S.H.O Somandepalli P.S.	12 Sep 2018	other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/920/2018	Hussain Ahammed vs S.H.O Madakasira P.s.	12 Sep 2018	other	—
AS/43/2016	Thummalannagari Babanna vs Thummalannagari Thimmanna	11 Sep 2018	judgement	—
EP/581/2016	Ms Shriram Transport Finance vs V.Mahesh Babu	11 Sep 2018	order	—
CRLMP.BAIL/910/2018	K.Mohan vs S.H.O Gudibanda P.S.	11 Sep 2018	other	—
CRLMP.BAIL/915/2018	T.S. Wazeed Basha vs S.H.O Madakasira P.s.	11 Sep 2018	other	—
EP/15/2018	M/S. Shrirak Transport Fianance Co. Ltd vs Inthiyaz	10 Sep 2018	other	—
MVOP/33/2014	Mota Raghunath vs K.Chennakrishna	10 Sep 2018	order	—
MVOP/46/2014	T.Bramhananda Reddy vs V.Haridoss	10 Sep 2018	order	—
MVOP/95/2016	Sowmya vs H.Narasimhulu	10 Sep 2018	order	—
MVOP/121/2017	Rajiya Sulthana vs Chand Basha	10 Sep 2018	order	—
CRLRP/54/2017	L.Sreenivasa vs Smt. Apoorva	10 Sep 2018	order	—
MVOP/105/2017	S.Mahaboob Basha vs B.Aswarthappa	08 Sep 2018	other	—
MVOP/109/2017	M.LakshmanRao vs S.Jaleel Basha	08 Sep 2018	other	—
AS/27/2016	M.R.Pradeep Kumar vs D.S.Krishnamurthy	07 Sep 2018	judgement	—
MVOP/84/2016	Vetti Narasimhappa vs Nagabhusanam	07 Sep 2018	order	—
OS/53/2018	T.V. Ravi Kumar vs Y.naresh	07 Sep 2018	judgement	—
SC/90/2018	Inspector of police Madakasira vs Kencharaya	07 Sep 2018	judgement	—
CRLMP.BAIL/902/2018	B.Naveen Nischchal vs S.H.O Hindupur I Town P.S	07 Sep 2018	other	—
AS/134/2016	H.Linganna vs Sannamma	06 Sep 2018	judgement	—
MVOP/15/2017	V.Kadirappa vs K.V.Mohan Kumar	06 Sep 2018	order	—
MVOP/20/2017	K.Ramanjinamma vs V.Arunakumar	06 Sep 2018	other	—
CRLA/131/2017	D.S. sumalatha vs D.H.O Hindupur Rural P.S	06 Sep 2018	judgement	—
AS/98/2016	Eeranna died vs Obulaiah	05 Sep 2018	judgement	—
MVOP/54/2016	nagamani vs Vsshameel ahammad musthafa	05 Sep 2018	order	—

Showing 100 of 1,353 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2018		27
Sep 2018		85
Aug 2018		72
Jul 2018		108
Jun 2018		84
May 2018		39
Apr 2018		76
Mar 2018		50
Feb 2018		83
Jan 2018		98
Dec 2017		69
Nov 2017		75

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Ch. Rama Chandra Murty handled?

Ch. Rama Chandra Murty has handled 1386 court orders since 2017 at II Addl. District Court, Hindupur (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 80 orders per month.

What types of cases does Ch. Rama Chandra Murty hear?

Based on available records, Ch. Rama Chandra Murty primarily handles Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Appeal Suits) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Appeals) at II Addl. District Court, Hindupur (Taluka).

Where is Ch. Rama Chandra Murty currently posted?

Ch. Rama Chandra Murty is posted as II Addl.District Judge Hindupur at II Addl. District Court, Hindupur (Taluka), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Ch. Rama Chandra Murty available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Ch. Rama Chandra Murty are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Ch. Rama Chandra Murty dispose cases?

Ch. Rama Chandra Murty disposes approximately 80 cases per month, based on 1386 orders handled over their tenure at II Addl. District Court, Hindupur (Taluka).

Since when is Ch. Rama Chandra Murty serving?

Ch. Rama Chandra Murty has been serving at II Addl. District Court, Hindupur (Taluka) since 2017.

Case Types

CRLMP 24%

MVOP 22%

EP 16%

AS 16%

OS 14%

SC 4%

CMA 3%

CRLA 1%

Posting History

Apr 2017 — Oct 2018

II Addl.District Judge Hindupur · 1,386 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri V.Venkateswara Rao

II Addl.District Judge Hindupur

1 orders

Salegramam Hemalatha

Senior Civil Judge

2 orders

Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Kota

Additional Junior Civil Judge

862 orders

Naramreddy Nikhil Reddy

Principal Junior Civil Judge

0 orders

← View all judges at II Addl. District Court, Hindupur (Taluka)