Sri G.Dharma Rao
Principal Junior Civil Judge
Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Srikalahasti (Taluka) · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh
Based on 5 recent ordersSri G.Dharma Rao, Principal Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Srikalahasti (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 5 court orders on record since 2024. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS cases.
Featured Judgments
1
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: SRIKALAHASTI
Present: Smt. M.Sandhya Rani, III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, FAC- Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikalahasti
Friday, this the Third (3rd) day of May, 2024
ORIGINAL SUIT No.348/2022
Between:
1. Kongara Mohana Reddy, S/o Sankar Reddy, aged about 38 years, residing at Seetharampeta village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.
2. Kongara Vallemma, W/o Mohana Reddy, aged about 37 years, residing at Seetharampeta village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.
3. Kongara Nagendra Varaprasad, S/o Mohana Reddy, aged about 14 years, Minor, represented by his father K.Mohana Reddy, residing at Seetharampeta village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.
.... Plaintiffs.
And
1. Kongara Sankar Reddy, S/o Late Lakshmana Reddy, aged about 73 years, residing at Paathaveerapuram village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.
2. Kongara Munemma, W/o K.Sankar Reddy, aged about 60 years, residing at Paathaveerapuram village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.
3. Kongara Venkatamuni Reddy, S/o K.Sankar Reddy, aged about 45 years, residing at Paathaveerapuram village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.
4. Kongara Dhakshyani, W/o K.Venkatamuni Reddy, aged about 40 years, residing at Paathaveerapuram village, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.
... Defendants.
This Suit is coming before me on 19.04.2024 in the presence of Sri C.Venkataswamy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and defendants remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff No.1 to 3 against the defendant No.1 to 4 for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the
Fair Judgment.
2 plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.
2.The plaint averments are :
The 1st plaintiff is husband of 2nd plaintiff and father of 3rd plaintiff and son of defendant No.1 and 2 and younger brother of 3rd defendant. The 1st plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and 3 constituted as Hindu Joint family having number of properties including the plaint A and C schedule lands. The B schedule land was the stridhana property of 2nd defendant. The plaint A schedule lands are Government lands which belonged to the ancestors of 1st plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 3. After demise of their ancestors the plaint schedule lands and some other lands were mutated in the name of 1st defendant who was kartha and manager of joint family.
While so there were family disputes in the womenfolk and it has resulted in misunderstandings among 1st plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 3 and they partitioned the entire joint family properties under partition panchayathi karaarunama on 10.03.2006 reduced into writing and the said document is in the custody of 1st defendant. In said partition the plaint ‘A’ schedule which are DKT lands and ‘C’ schedule lands which are settlement lands allotted to the 1st plaintiff. Later the 1st defendant has executed a registered gift settlement deed vide document No.178/2010 dated 27.01.2010 in favour of 3rd plaintiff pertaining to plaint ‘C’ schedule lands since they are settlement lands.
The ‘B’ schedule land was the stridhana property of 2nd defendant and she has alienated the plaint ‘B’ schedule land by way of unregistered gift settlement deed in favour of 2nd plaintiff under an unregistered deed and delivered possession of the same to her on 09.12.2015. After partition dated 10.03.2006 and after above said gift settlement deeds dated 27.01.2010 and 09.12.2015, the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective lands and cultivating the same.
The Revenue authorities of Yerpedu Mandal recognized the legal rights, title, possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over their respective lands by granting concerned pattadar passbooks, title deeds, 1(b) Namoona and adangals in their favour
Fair Judgment.
3 with regard to their lands, hence the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of their respective lands over the plaint schedule lands having right, title interest and possession over the same.
The defendant No.1 and 2 became puppets in the hands of defendant No.3 and 4 and they are dancing as per the tunes of defendant No.3 and 4 and all of them developed dislike and aversion towards plaintiffs since the value of the land which are in possession of plaintiffs became worth than the lands which are in the possession of defendants, the defendants started harassment towards plaintiffs and putting hurdles with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule land.
While so on 10.08.2022 when the plaintiffs were attending agricultural operations in the plaint schedule lands, they came along with their followers and made serious attempts to stop the agricultural works of plaintiffs in the plaint schedule lands and made vehement attempts to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit lands. Then the plaintiffs with the help of village elders and Police temporarily prevented the high handed acts of defendants and their followers and the defendants are openly proclaiming in the village that they would dispossess the plaintiffs as soon as possible from the possession of plaint schedule lands.
The defendants have no manner of right, title, interest, possession or enjoyment or whatsoever over the plaint schedule properties , but they are adopting illegal methods to dispossess the plaintiffs from their peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule lands. The plaintiffss are not a match to thwart the illegal and high handed acts of defendants and their followers. Under the said circumstances the plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for Permanent
Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and followers from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties in any manner.
3.After issuance of summons and after receipt of the same the Defendants not appeared before this court, hence the defendants are set exparte on 12.10.2022.
Fair Judgment.
4
4.Proof affidavit of the 1st Plaintiff is filed and the same is taken as P.W.1 and he got marked Ex.A1 to A13.
5. Heard the arguments of plaintiffs.
6.Now the point for consideration is ''Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction against the defendants as prayed''?
7. POINT:-
i)The 1st plaintiff who is examined as P.W.1 reiterated the contents of plaint in the Chief examination affidavit and relied on Ex.A1 to A13. It is the case of plaintiffs that they are the absolute owners of the plaint ‘A’ to ‘C’ schedule properties by virtue of E-pattadar passbooks, certified copies of Form-1B and Adangal/Pahani issued in favour of plaintiff No.1 to 3 in respect of plaint ‘A’ to ‘C’ schedule properties under
Ex.A1 to Ex.A12. The Registered Gift settlement deed vide document No.178/2010
dated 27.01.2010 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 3rd plaintiff pertaining to
plaint ‘C’ schedule land marked under Ex.A13. The defendants who have nothing to do with the plaint ‘A’ to ‘C’ schedule properties making hectic efforts to dispossess the plaintiffs highhandedly. In the said circumstances the plaintiffs are constrained to file the above suit.
ii)The above said contentions have been categorically deposed by the 1st plaintiff by filing proof affidavit. The evidence of PW1 has remained undiscredited and unchallenged. No adverse evidence has been placed before this Court. This being a suit for Permanent Injunction this Court is of paramount consideration whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and whether there is any unlawful interference by the defendants. The lawful possession of the plaintiffs as on date of filing of suit over plaint A to C schedule lands is established by Exs.A1 to A13.
Since defendants had remained exparte in the suit it can be said that adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants to the effect that they had
Fair Judgment.
5 admitted the case of plaintiffs and that they had nothing to put-forth as a contest.
Therefore by virtue of consistent and undiscredited evidence of PW1 coupled with
Exs.A1 to A13 this Court concludes and holds that the plaintiffs established the claim and the failure of the defendants to discharge the same and as such the plaintiffs are entitled for the claim as prayed. Hence this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.
8. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed granting Permanent Injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. No costs.
Typed to dictation to the Typist of the Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3 rd day of May, 2024.
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, FAC- Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikalahasti.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
Plaintiff: Defendant: P.W.1: K.Mohana Reddy. Exparte.
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
Plaintiff:
Ex.A1 - -Pattadar passbook in the name of 1st plaintiff issued by Tahsildar, Yerpedu mandal pertaining to plaint ‘A’ schedule lands.
Ex.A211.08.2022Certified copy of 1(b) Namoona issued by Tahsildar, Yerpedu mandal pertaining to ‘A’ schedule land obtained through Grama ward sachivalayam.
Ex.A311.08.2022Certified copy of Adangal/Pahani for fasli 1432 issued by Tahsildar, Yerpedu mandal pertaining to ‘A’ schedule land obtained through Grama ward Sachivalayam.
Ex.A4- -E-Pattadar passbook in the name of 2nd plaintiff pertaining to ‘B’ schedule land issued by Tahsildar, Yerpedu mandal.
Ex.A511.08.2022Certified copy of 1(b) Namoona issued by Tahsildar, Yerpedu mandal pertaining to ‘B’ schedule land in favour of 2nd plaintiff obtained through Grama ward sachivalayam.
Fair Judgment.
6
Ex.A611.08.2022Certified copy of Adangal/Pahani for fasli 1432 issued by Tahsildar, Yerpedu mandal pertaining to ‘B’ schedule land in favour of 2nd plaintiff obtained through Grama ward Sachivalayam.
Ex.A7 - -E-Pattadar passbook in the name of 3rd plaintiff pertaining to 1st item of plaint ‘C’ schedule land issued by Tahsildar, Yerpedu mandal.
Ex.A811.08.2022Certified copy of 1(b) Namoona issued by Tahsildar, Yerpedu mandal pertaining to 1st item of plaint ‘C’ schedule land in favour of 3rd plaintiff obtained through Grama ward sachivalayam.
Ex.A911.08.2022Certified copy of Adangal/Pahani for fasli 1432 issued by Tahsildar, Yerpedu mandal pertaining to 1st item of plaint ‘C’ schedule land in favour of 3rd plaintiff obtained through Grama ward Sachivalayam.
Ex.A10- -E-Pattadar passbook in the name of 3rd plaintiff pertaining to 2nd item of plaint ‘C’ schedule land issued by Tahsildar, Yerpedu mandal.
Ex.A1111.08.2022Certified copy of 1(b) Namoona issued by Tahsildar, Yerpedu mandal pertaining to 2nd item of plaint ‘C’ schedule land in favour of 3rd plaintiff obtained through Grama ward sachivalayam.
Ex.A1211.08.2022Certified copy of Adangal/Pahani for fasli 1432 issued by Tahsildar, Yerpedu mandal pertaining to 2nd item of plaint ‘C’ schedule land in favour of 3rd plaintiff obtained through Grama ward Sachivalayam.
Ex.A1327.01.2010Registered Gift settlement deed vide document No.178/2010 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 3rd plaintiff pertaining to plaint ‘C’ schedule land.
Defendant: Exparte
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, FAC- Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikalahasti.
Fair Judgment.
1
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: SRIKALAHASTI
Present:- Smt.M.Sandhya Rani, III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, FAC-Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikalahasti
Friday, the Third day (3rd) day of May, 2024.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.97/2022
Between:
1. Tankam Bathemma, W/o T.Balakrishnaiah, aged about 48 years, residing at Gundlakandriga village, Chelluru Post, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.
2. Tankam Giri Babu, S/o T.Balakrishnaiah, aged about 30 years, residing at Gundlakandriga village, Chelluru Post, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District.
.... Plaintiffs.
And
1. Nalagangula Bathaiah, S/o Late Krishnaiah, aged about 53 years, residing at D.No.3/52, Gundlakandriga village, Chelluru post, Yerpedu Mandal.
2. Nalagangula Ganggula Gowri, W/o Balakrishnaiah, aged about 38 years, Kondalo Adavaram village, KVB.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District.
... Defendants.
This Suit is coming before me on 19.04.2024 in the presence of Sri P.Venkatadri, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and defendants set exparte, and upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 against the defendants No.1 and 2 for Partition of plaint schedule properties into 3 equal shares by metes and bounds and allot 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs and put them in separate possession and for costs of the suit.
2.The plaint averments are :
The 1st plaintiff and defendants are children of late Nalagangula Krishnaiah and N.Anandamma and the 2nd plaintiff is the son of 1st plaintiff. The plaint schedule properties were occupied by the father of 1st plaintiff and defendants by name
N.Krishnaiah for about 50 years ago and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same by cultivating the plaint schedule properties during his lifetime. After his demise the plaint schedule properties devolved to his wife by name N.Anandamma.
Fair Judgment.
2
The then Tahsildar, Yerpedu Mandal has also transferred Pattadar passbook, title deed in her name from her husband and during her lifetime she has been cultivating the same with absolute rights and her name also mutated in all Revenue records. The said Anandamma also died on 23.03.2018 by leaving behind her, her legal heirs i.e. 1st plaintiff and defendants herein. The plaint schedule properties are DKT lands. The 1st plaintiff got right to arrangement of family partition in the plaint schedule property from the defendants by way of inheritance through her parents.
After the demise of her parents the plaintiff cultivated the same jointly with 1st defendant and given some harvest produce also to the 2nd defendant by the both 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant. Recently the 1st plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant managed the Revenue authorities and mutated his name in Revenue records secretly without knowledge and consent of plaintiffs to defeat the legitimate share of plaintiffs in the plaint schedule properties and those entries are not valid and it is not enforceable in accordance with law without allotting one share to the plaintiffs. Further the said mere entries in Revenue records stands in the name of 1st defendant will not be binding upon plaintiff’s right to get one such share in the plaint schedule properties. All the original documents of parents of 1st plaintiff pertaining to the plaint schedule properties are in custody of 1st defendant.
If the 1st defendant has obtained pattadar passbook in his name, those documents are not valid and binding upon plaintiffs rights. The plaintiffs got issued legal notice to the defendants on 17.08.2021 calling upon them to divide the plaint schedule properties into 3 equal shares with good and bad qualities and by metes and bounds and to allot 1/3rd legitimate share to the plaintiffs and put the plaintiffs in possession of the same within 15 days from the date of notice. The same was received by the defendants but they did not comply the demands of plaintiffs and even no reply was given to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs felt it is no longer safe to continue as joint family along with defendants.
Fair Judgment.
3
In spite of the best efforts of the plaintiff the defendant No.1 and 2 did not come forward for amicable partition and have been acting adverse to the interest of undivided share of the plaintiffs. Having no other option the plaintiffs are constrained to file the above suit.
3. After issuance of summons and after reciept of the same the defendant No.1 appeared before this Court through his Counsel, but failed to file written statement, he was set exparte on 20.06.2022. After service of summons the defendant No.2 failed to appear before this Court hence was set exparte on 22.09.2022.
4. During the course of trial, proof affidavit of 1st plaintiff is taken as PW1 and she got marked Ex.A1 to A3.
5. Heard the arguments of plaintiff.
6. Now the point for consideration is ''Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of plaint schedule properties into 3 equal shares and allotment of 1/3 rd share to the plaintiffs as prayed''?
7. POINT:-
i) It is the case of plaintiffs that, plaint schedule properties originally belonged to the father of 1st plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and 2 by name Nalagangula Krishnaiah and their mother namely N.Anandamma. The said Nalagangula Krishnaiah died intestate long back. After his demise, the plaint schedule properties devolved to his wife by name N.Anandamma. The said N.Anandamma died on 23.03.2018 leaving behind 1st plaintiff and defendants as her legal heirs. The suit schedule properties are
DKT lands, the 1st plaintiff got right in the plaint schedule properties by way of inheritance through her parents. The copy of adangals in the name of N.Anandamma in respect of plaint schedule properties obtained under RTI Act vide Ex.A1 show property as ancestral property. It is further averred that since the date of death of the mother of the 1st plaintiff and defendants, the plaint schedule properties were cultivated jointly by 1st plaintiff and defendants. The plaint schedule properties are in
Fair Judgment.
4 undivided possession of plaintiffs and defendants. The Death certificate of
Anandamma vide Ex.A2 filed by plaintiff. While so, the defendant No.1 colluded with
Revenue authorities created false records in his name, if the 1st defendant has obtained Pattadar passbook in his name, those documents are not valid and binding upon plaintiffs rights, only with a view to defeat the plaintiffs legitimate share in the plaint schedule propeties he obtained fraudulent records. The defendants are not co-operating for amicable partition. In the said circumstances the plaintiffs got issued legal notice Dt.17.08.2021 to the defendants vide Ex.A3 demanding for
Partition of the plaint schedule properties into 3 equal shares and allotment of 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs. But the defendants did not comply the demands of plaintiffs.
Therefore the plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit.
ii)The above said contentions have been categorically deposed by PW1 by filing proof affidavit. No adverse evidence has been placed before this Court. Since defendants No.1 and 2 had remained exparte in the suit it can be said that adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants to the effect that they have admitted the case of plaintiffs and that they had nothing to put-forth as a contest. This being a suit for Partition this Court is of paramount consideration whether the plaintiffs are entitled for Partition over the plaint schedule properties. The plaint schedule properties are in the name of mother of 1st plaintiff and Defendants. The defendants and the plaintiffs as Hindu joint family are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned properties.
The 1st plaintiff and the defendants being legal heirs are entitled for 3 equal shares over the plaint schedule properties. The Ex.A1 adangal in the name of
N.Anandamma i.e. mother of 1st plaintiff and defendants with respect to plaint schedule properties. The Ex.A2 death certificate of Anandamma support the case of plaintiffs. The contention of plaintiffs that the defendants are intentionally not co- operating for amicable Partition is evident from legal notice issued by plaintiff under
Ex.A3. Therefore by virtue of consistant and undiscredited evidence of PW1 coupled
Fair Judgment.
5 with Ex.A1 to A3 this Court concludes and holds that the 1st Plaintiff established that she is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties being joint family properties and the failure of the defendants to discharge the same and as such the plaintiffs are entitled for suit claim as prayed. Hence this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.
8. IN THE RESULT, the suit is preliminarily decreed in favour of the plaintiffs directing for Partition of plaint schedule properties into 3 equal shares by metes and bounds and allotting 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs. The defendants are entitled to 1/3rd share each. In the circumstances parties do bear their own costs.
Typed to dictation to the Typist of the Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3 rd day of May, 2024.
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, FAC- Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikalahasti.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
Plaintiff: Defendants:
P.W.1: T.Bathemma. Exparte.
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
Plaintiff:
Ex.A1- -Adangals obtained under RTI Act in the name of N.Anandamma.
Ex.A2- -Death certificate of Anandamma.
Ex.A3- -Office copy of Legal notice.
Defendant: Exparte.
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, FAC- Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikalahasti.
Fair Judgment.
1
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: SRIKALAHASTI
Present: Smt. M.Sandhya Rani, III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, FAC- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti
Friday, this the 3rd day of May, 2024
ORIGINAL SUIT No.355/2022
Between: Yasarapu Munemma W/o Yasarapu Jaya, aged about 60 years, Agriculturist, residing at Cherlopalli village, Kapugunneri Post, Srikalahasti Mandal, Tirupati District.
... Plaintiff.
AND
Yasarapu Mangamma W/o Y.Penchalaiah, aged about 85 years, House wife and Agriculturist, residing at Cherlopalli village, Kapugunneri Post, Srikalahasti Mandal, Tirupati District.
...Defendant.
This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 19.04.2024 in the presence of Sri A.Sudhakar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendant called absent and set exparte; and upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant to direct the defendant to execute registered rectification deed with her expenses to the
Registered sale deed dated 26.12.2007 bearing Doc.No.3661/2007 in favour of plaintiff by deleting the survey No.202/3 and by inserting the correct survey
No.202/6 in respect of the first item of the plaint schedule land within the time stipulated by the Court and on failure to do so the same may be executed through process of law and for costs of the suit.
2.The facts of the plaint are
The plaintiff submits that on 26.12.2007 the defendant in order to discharge her family debts had approached the husband of the plaintiff by name Yasarapu Jaya, S/o Y.Penchalaiah during his life time to sell the schedule mentioned lands. The sale price was mutually arrived at Rs.14,000/- (Rupees
Fair Judgment.
2
Fourteen Thousand only). Immediately the husband of the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand only) to the defendant on the same day i.e. on 26.12.2007. After receipt of the sale consideration the defendant executed a registered sale deed dated 26.12.2007 in favour of the husband of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule lands.
The husband of the plaintiff was duly inducted into possession of the suit lands on the even date. Thus the husband of the plaintiff become the absolute owner and he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned lands by raising crops in the same during his life time.
The husband of the plaintiff died on 08.09.2010 leaving behind him the plaintiff herein as legal heir entitled to succeed to the estate of her husband including the plaint schedule property and now she had become the absolute owner and she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned lands for the last 15 years to the knowledge of all including the defendant.
While so, recently on suspicion, the plaintiff obtained Encumbrance certificate from the office of Sub Registrar, Srikalahasti on 23.04.2021 for the suit schedule lands. To her utter surprise, the survey number of the first item of the suit land is wrongly mentioned in the registered sale deed as Survey
No.202/3 instead of Survey No.202/6. After detecting the said mistake, the plaintiff also obtained Pattadar’s Adangal/Pahani from the Grama/Ward
Sachivalayam in respect of the first item of the suit schedule lands and in which also the first item of the suit survey number is mentioned as survey
No.202/6. Immediately the plaintiff approached the defendant and requested her to execute a registered rectification deed by deleting the wrong survey number and by rectifying the correct survey number in the registered sale deed
dated 26.12.2007. But the defendant has been postponing the same on some
pretext or the other and did not comply with the demand of the plaintiff.
Fair Judgment.
3
The plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 18.06.2022 to the defendant calling upon her to execute a registered rectification deed in respect of the registered sale deed dated 26.12.2007. Though the defendant received the legal notice, neither she complied with the demand of the plaintiff nor gave any reply. Therefore the Plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for the relief of execution of registered rectification to the aforesaid registered sale deed dated 26.12.2007 in respect of the schedule mentioned property. Hence the suit.
3.After issuance of summons and after receipt of the same the defendant appeared in person but failed to proceed with matter and was set exparte on 14.11.2022.
4.Heard the arguments of plaintiff.
5.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rectification
deed to Registered sale deed Dt.26.12.2007 in Doc.No.3661/2007 over
1 st Item of suit schedule property?”
6. POINT:-
i)Perused the plaint, documents filed by the plaintiff, proof affidavit of plaintiff and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff examined as P.W.1 reiterated the contents of the plaint in the chief examination affidavit. It is the case of Plaintiff that originally Item No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property belonged to defendant and to discharge her debts she approached husband of plaintiff namely Yasarapu Jaya for selling said properties. The plaintiff's husband purchased the suit schedule properties under registered sale deed dated 26.12.2007 vide Ex.A1 for consideration of
Rs.14,000/-. Since the date of purchase, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties. While so, the said Yasarapu Jaya died leaving behind the Plaintiff as his legal heir. The Plaintiff inherited the properties and was enjoying the suit schedule properties. As the matter stood thus, the
Fair Judgment.
4 plaintiff obtained encumbrance certificate vide Ex.A2 from the office of Sub
Registrar, Srikalahasti and came to know about the wrongly mentioned survey number. The Revenue records under Ex.A3 also is not in the name of husband of plaintiff. The certified copies of Adangal of 1st Item and 2nd Item of suit lands marked under Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 respectively. The defendant inspite of several requests did not come forward to rectify said mistake. Hence the plaintiff got issued legal notice Dt.18.06.2022 demanding the defendant for execution of rectification deed. The same is served on defendant evident from Ex.A6 postal acknowledgment. But she failed to comply the demand. Having no other option the Plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.
ii) The above said contentions have been categorically deposed by the plaintiff by filing proof affidavit. Since the main suit is filed for execution of registered rectification deed to the Registered sale deed dated 26.12.2007 bearing Doc.No.3661/2007 in favour of plaintiff by deleting the survey No.202/3 and by inserting the correct survey No.202/6 in respect of the first item of the plaint schedule land this Court is of paramount consideration whether the
Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed.
The original Registered sale deed in Doc.No.3661/2007 Dt.26.12.2007 executed in favour of plaintiff husband namely Yasarapu Jaya by defendant under Ex.A1 for Item No.1 and 2 of suit schedule property show the right and title of said Yasarapu Jaya. He died on 08.09.2010 leaving behind plaintiff as his sole legal heir. But the plaintiff did not file any family member certificate to show herself as sole legal heir to his estate. The Ex.A2 Encumbrance certificate issued by the SRO, Srikalahasti for Item No.1 of suit property is not in the name of plaintiff's husband and do not reflect Ex.A1 transaction in favour of said
Yasarapu Jaya. Except Ex.A1 there is no other document to show right and possession of defendant or plaintiff's husband over Item No.1 of suit lands.
Further the Ex.A1 sale deed is dated 26.12.2007 therefore in case of any
Fair Judgment.
5 rectification the plaintiff has to approach within 3 years of said execution.
Hence the suit is barred by limitation. Further the Item No.1 is in the name of 3rd parties as per Ex.A2 Encumbrance statement. Therefore the said 3rd parties are necessary parties to above suit. Hence the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. In view of above reasons the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief prayed. Hence the Point is answered against the Plaintiff.
7. IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Typed to dictation to the Stenographer of the Court partly, typed partly by me, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 3rd day of May, 2024.
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, FAC- Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikalahasti.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
Plaintiff: Defendant: P.W.1: Y.Munemma Nil
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
Plaintiff: Ex.A126.12.2007 Original Registered sale deed in Doc.No.3661/2007 executed by defendant in favour of Y.Jaya i.e husband of plaintiff. Ex.A223.04.2021 Encumbrance certificate issued by SRO, Srikalahasti. Ex.A309.05.2022 Certified copy of Adangal Pahani in respect of 1st item of suit lands. Ex.A409.05.2022 Certified copy of Adangal Pahani in respect of 2nd item of suit lands. Ex.A518.06.2022 Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A628.06.2022 Served postal acknowledgment.
Defendant: Exparte.
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, FAC- Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikalahasti.
Fair Judgment.
1
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: SRIKALAHASTI
Present: Smt. M.Sandhya Rani, III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, FAC- Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikalahasti
Friday, this the Third (3rd) day of May, 2024
ORIGINAL SUIT No.41/2021
Between:
Shaik Shabina, W/o Beldaluri Rasheed Ahammad, aged about 27 years, residing at D.No.1-464, Manchineelagunta,NearMunicipaloffice, Srikalahasti Town and Mandal, Tirupati District.
...Plaintiff
And
Beldaluri Rasheed Ahammad, S/o Chinna Basha Saheb, aged about 32 years, residing at D.No.1-83, Prasantha Nagar, Kurabalakota village and Post, near Madanapalli, Chittoor District.
... Defendant.
This Suit is coming before me on 22.03.2024 in the presence of Sri A.Muni Prasad, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for dissolution of marriage between the plaintiff and defendant Dt. 15.07.2008 and for costs of the suit.
2.The averments of the plaint are:
The plaintiff married the defendant on 15.07.2008 as per Muslim rites and customs, the solemnization of the marriage took place at Kuwait before their close relatives. Later on the marriage has been consummated, both the parents and elders have approved their marriage. Out of their wed-lock, the plaintiff gave birth to two sons namely Sayeef aged about 5 years born in Srikalahasti and the 2nd son Hunaied aged about 3 years born at Kuwait. The matrimonial life with the defendant went happily and smoothly for about four years. Later misunderstandings began between the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant developed illicit intimacy with his brother’s wife and tortured the plaintiff like anything and the misunderstandings inbetween the plaintiff and
Fair Judgment.
2 defendant was mainly due to the incompatibility of temperament.
The plaintiff tried to adjust herself with the defendant it proved to be futile and impossible. Day in day out the defendant used to be in rebel mood always picking up quarrel with the plaintiff even on trivial matters. After that the defendant again developed illegal intimacy with another lady by name Varalakshmi. Inspite of protest of plaintiff, the defendant brought his friends to their house in the night and bet her
before them and threatened the plaintiff for arrangement of proper stuff in the dinner
while taking liquor. After four days of their marriage, the defendant taken away the jewellery of plaintiff worth about 2.50 lakhs and lost the same in playing cards, he is also indebted to several persons and since then the plaintiff bore the sadistic behavior of the defendant.
The plaintiff bore the atrocities made by the defendant for a period of four years but the defendant never taken care of his children at any point of time even he is not maintaining the family, he is continuously leading adulterous life. During her pregnancy time, the defendant kicked the plaintiff with leg and bet her indiscriminately, due to that she sustained bleeding injury and he did not even provide any medical aid to her, due to that the plaintiff attempted to commit suicide. The plaintiff is working in Quaram office and earn an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month and the defendant continuously taken her salary and used it for his personal expenses. Being a dutiful wife, she did not complain the same to the Police of Kuwait.
The defendant borrows loans and thereby indebted to several persons, he is earning a salary of Rs.70,000/- per month. The plaintiff complained to the Embassy and they enquired the same and granted divorce in between plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff is Indian national holding Kuwait civil I.D.No. 280022405083 and the defendant is Indian National holding Kuwait civil I.D No. 284020502638. They issued divorce certificate after agreed by both the plaintiff and defendant in the presence of witnesses in Kuwait and directed to take original divorce in India from concerned divorce family
Court to whom it may concerned.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has declared the dissolution of marriage by the
Fair Judgment.
3 husband by pronouncing Talak either orally or by giving the same in writing as invalid in its Judgment Sayarabano Vs Union of India 2017 (9) Supreme Court cases page:1, hence the plaintiff herein has no other alternative than to file the present suit seeking divorce of her marriage with the defendant dated 15.07.2008. After the pronouncement of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court declaring the dissolution of the marriage by the husband by means of Talak as invalid, as on today, no suitable legislation is made by the
Parliament as to which is the proper Court in which divorce proceedings have to be sought and also in what form the divorce has to be obtained. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff herein has no other alternative than to file the present suit in this Court. As per sec.9 of the Civil Procedure code authorized the filing of the suit in the civil court.
Hence the suit.
3.After issuance of summons and inspite of reciept of the same the defendant failed to appear before this court and hence he was set exparte on 06.01.2022.
4.Proof affidavit of the Plaintiff is filed and the same is taken as P.W.1 and she got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.
5.Heard the Arguments of the Plaintiff.
6.Now the point for consideration is:- “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the dissolution of marriage between the plaintiff and defendant Dt.15.07.2008 as prayed?”
7. Point:-
i)The plaintiff is examined in chief in accordance with her pleadings and relied on documents Exs.A1 and Ex.A2. It is the contention of the plaintiff that since the date of marriage the defendant had been quarrelsome and never led amicable marital life. Exs.A1 and A2 are the marriage certificate dated 17.04.2018 of plaintiff and defendant issued by A.P State Waqf board and Divorce certificate dated 27.08.2019 issued by Kuwait Government respectively. Even after birth of 2 children there was no change in his attitude. Being vexed with his behaviour the plaintiff in the said circumstances obtained divorce at Kuwait. Therefore the present suit is filed by the
Fair Judgment.
4 plaintiff for dissolution of marriage between the parties.
The contentions of the plaintiff have been categorically deposed by the plaintiff by filing proof affidavit. No adverse evidence has been placed before this Court. Since defendant had remained exparte in the suit it can be said that adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant to the effect that he had admitted the case of plaintiff and that he had nothing to put-forth as a contest. Therefore by virtue of consistent and undiscredited evidence of P.W-1 coupled with Ex.A1 and A2 this Court concludes and holds that the plaintiff established her case. Hence this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
8. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant declaring the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant dated 15.07.2008 as dissolved. No costs.
Typed dictation to the Typist of the Court, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 3 rd day of May, 2024.
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, FAC- Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikalahasti.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
Plaintiff: Defendant: P.W.1: Shaik Shabina. Exparte.
Exhibits marked for plaintiff:
Ex.A1:17.04.2018Marriage certificate of plaintiff and defendant issued by A.P State Waqf board.
Ex.A2:27.08.2019Divorce certificate issued by Kuwait Government.
Exhibits marked for defendant: Exparte.
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, FAC- Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikalahasti.
Fair Judgment.
1
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: SRIKALAHASTI
Present: Smt. M.Sandhya Rani, III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, FAC- Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikalahasti
Friday, this the Third (3rd) day of May, 2024
ORIGINAL SUIT No.376/2023
Between:
NagamalliRajasekhar,S/oLate N.Krishnamurthy, aged about 49 years, business, residing at D.No.1-898, NTR Nagar, Srikalahasti Town, Tirupati District.
...Plaintiff
And
Tirukkala Srinivasulu, S/o T.Narayanaswamy, aged about 49 years, business, residing at D.No.4/768, Teru Veedhi, Srikalahasti Town, Tirupati District.
... Defendant
This Suit is coming before me on 19.04.2024 in the presence of Sri E.Prabhakara Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs.3,22,748/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand
Seven Hundred and Forty Eight only) due under suit promissory note along with subsequent interest at 24% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till realization and for costs of the suit.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are that :
The defendant borrowed Rs.1,90,000/- on 10.11.2020 from the plaintiff for his family necessities by duly executing promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the said date agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either on his demand or on order. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid any amount either towards principal or interest due under the promissory note. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.
Fair Judgment 2
3.After receipt of summons, the defendant appeared before the Court through his Counsel, but failed to file written statement hence the right to file written statement is forfeited on 01.03.2024.
4.Proof affidavit of the Plaintiff is filed and the same is taken as P.W.1 and he got marked Ex.A1.
5.Heard the Arguments of the Plaintiff.
6.Now the point for consideration is:- “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed?”
7. POINT:-
i)It is the case of plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of
Rs.1,90,000/- on 10.11.2020 by duly executing promissory note vide Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same along with interest at 24% p.a to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant failed to discharge the debt due under suit promissory note and postponing the same. Hence the suit.
ii)The above said contentions of the plaintiff have been categorically deposed by the plaintiff by filing proof affidavit. No adverse evidence placed against the Plaintiff and the suit claim to the extent of suit amount is proved.
Since defendant had remained exparte in the suit, it can be said that adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant to the effect that he had admitted the case of plaintiff and that he has nothing to put-forth as a contest.
Therefore by virtue of consistant and undiscredited evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A1, this Court concludes and holds that the Plaintiff established the suit amount and the failure of the defendant to discharge the same and as such the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed. Hence the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
So far the future interest claimed by the plaintiff at the rate of 24% p.a on the principal amount of Rs.1,90,000/- under Ex.A1 is exorbitant and this
Fair Judgment 3 is not a commercial transaction therefore this Court is inclined to award future interest at 6% p.a on the principal amount of Rs.1,90,000/- from the date of filing of suit till realization.
8. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for Rs.3,22,748/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Eight only) and future interest is awarded at 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh and Ninety Thousands only) from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
Typed dictation to the Typist of the Court, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 3rd day of May, 2024.
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, FAC- Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikalahasti.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
Plaintiff: Defendant: P.W.1: N.Rajasekhar. Exparte.
Exhibits marked for plaintiff:
Ex.A1:10.11.2020 Suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,90,000/-.
Exhibits marked for defendant: Exparte.
III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, FAC- Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikalahasti.
Fair Judgment
Order Record 5 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OS/41/2021 | Shaik Shabina vs Beldaluri Rasheed Ahammad | 03 May 2024 | Judgement | — |
| OS/97/2022 | Tankam Bathemma vs Nagangula Bathaiah | 03 May 2024 | Judgement | — |
| OS/348/2022 | K.Mohana Reddy vs K.Sankar Reddy | 03 May 2024 | Judgement | — |
| OS/355/2022 | Y.Munemma vs Y.Mangamma | 03 May 2024 | Judgement | — |
| OS/376/2023 | Nagamalli Rajasekhar vs Tirukkala Srinivasulu | 03 May 2024 | Judgement | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Sri G.Dharma Rao handled?
Sri G.Dharma Rao has handled 5 court orders since 2024 at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Srikalahasti (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 1 orders per month.
What types of cases does Sri G.Dharma Rao hear?
Based on available records, Sri G.Dharma Rao primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits) at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Srikalahasti (Taluka).
Where is Sri G.Dharma Rao currently posted?
Sri G.Dharma Rao is posted as Principal Junior Civil Judge at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Srikalahasti (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.
Are judgments by Sri G.Dharma Rao available online?
Yes. 5 judgments by Sri G.Dharma Rao are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does Sri G.Dharma Rao dispose cases?
Sri G.Dharma Rao disposes approximately 1 cases per month, based on 5 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Srikalahasti (Taluka).
Since when is Sri G.Dharma Rao serving?
Sri G.Dharma Rao has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Srikalahasti (Taluka) since 2024.
Case Types
Posting History
-
May 2024 — Aug 2024Principal Junior Civil Judge · 5 orders
Other Judges at this Court