Sri.G.V.Mahesh Nath

Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,Chevella

Chevella, ADJ Court Complex · Rangareddy · Telangana

Sri.G.V.Mahesh Nath, Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,Chevella, is posted at Chevella, ADJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana, India. 77 court orders on record since 2022. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, SC, H cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

SC/1/2019 Acquitted

SHO.PS.Chevella vs Gajulagudem Yadaiah

28 Apr 2023

Page No. 1 of 7 S.C.No. 1 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

CHEVELLA , R.R.DISTRICT

Present: SRI. G.V. MAHESH NATH Assistant Sessions Judge, Chevella, R.R.District.

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2023

SESSIONS CASE No. 1 of 2019

Name of the Complainant The State of T.S through Sub- Inspector of Police, P.S.Chevella.

Name of the accused A1: Gajulagudem Yadaiah, S/o. Anthaiah, Age 29 years Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gollapally village of Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. A2: Katikem Krishna S/o. Agamaiah, Aged 32 years Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gollapally village of Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Charges U/SectionU/s 307 and 324 r/w 34 I.P.C

Crime. No. 226/2018

Plea of the AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence or OrderAcquittal

Prosecution conducted bySri. D.Upender, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Defence conducted bySri. C.Ravishankar Goud

This case was committed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Chevella, vide PRC.15/2018.

This case is coming before me on 13.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. D.Upender, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. C.Ravishankar Goud, Advocate for accused Nos. 1 and 2 and upon hearing and perusal of the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as IPC).

Asst. Sessions Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

Page No. 2 of 7 S.C.No. 1 of 2019

2.On 19.07.2018 at about 4.30 pm in the agriculture fields of accused

No.1 LW5/Smt Thalari Prameela was cutting the grass on which accused

Nos. 1 and 2 picked up quarrel and beat her with sticks on head and other parts of the body with an intention to kill her.

3.The police conducted investigation on report lodged by LW1/Thalari

Narsimhulu on 20.07.2018. After completing the investigation, police laid their report under Section 173 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short herein after referred to as Cr.P.C.). The Learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Chevella took cognizance of the Offence punishable under

Section 307 and 324 r/w 34 IPC vide PRC No. 15 of 2018. As the case was triable by Court of Session, it was committed to the Court of Session,

Ranga Reddy District. The Court of Session took cognizance vide S.C.No.

1 of 2019 and made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.

The accused were supplied with copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.After hearing both sides and on examination of the accused Charge were framed under Section 307 and 324 r/w 34 IPC, read over and explained to the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Telugu language. Accused denied the Charge and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and got marked Ex.P1 to

P12. The role of each prosecution witness is like this. PW1 is the injured and eye witness. PWs 2 and 3 are the circumstantial witnesses. PW4 is the eye witness. PW5 is the panch for crime details form. PWs 6 and 7 are the panch for confession cum seizure panchanamas. PW8 is the medical officer,

Asst. Sessions Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

Page No. 3 of 7 S.C.No. 1 of 2019 who treated the injured person and issued the medical certificate. PW9 is the investigating officer.

6.After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence that appeared in the prosecution evidence against them. They denied prosecution evidence as false and reported no defense evidence.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the record. Now the points that arises for determination are:

1) Whether prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 324 r/w 34 IPC on the principle of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard?

2) To What findings?

8.POINT No.1:

The victim in the present case examined as PW1 deposed that the incident occurred on 19.07.2018. On the date of incident PW1 was attending to agriculture work in her fields wherein accused Nos. 1 and 2 abused her in filthy language and threatened to kill her by holding stick in their hands. PW1 deposed that she run from the fields wherein accused chased her and beat her with the stick all over the body with an intention to kill her. PW1 deposed that the incident was witnessed by LW2 to 4 and informed PW1 husband/LW1 about the incident. PW1 was taken to hospital wherein 25 stitches were put to the wound on her head.

9.The evidence of PW1 supported the case of the prosecution. PW1 stated the date, month and place of the incident and also narrated the action of the accused wherein they caused injuries to PW1 with sticks.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

Page No. 4 of 7 S.C.No. 1 of 2019

Corroborating evidence of PW1, the doctor examined as PW8 deposed that on 19.07.2018 at about 6.45 pm PW1 came to the hospital accompanied by

LW6/Ananthaiah. PW1 informed that she was beaten by unknown person and on examination PW8 found injuries over the occipital region.

Accordingly, PW8 issued injury certificate as in Ex.P9. Thus, the evidence of PW1 that she sustained injuries to her head and other parts of the body is materially corroborated the evidence of PW8 coupled with Ex.P9 certificate. Thus, the prosecution is able to prove the fact that PW1 sustained injuries to her head and other parts of the body on 19.07.2018.

10.However, prosecution is required to prove the fact that injuries sustained to PW1 were caused by the accused and intention of the accused was to kill PW1.

11.In the cross examination of PW1, it is elicited that there are previous land disputes between PW1 and accused. This elicitation is relevant as there is delay in lodging the report by LW1/Thalari Narsimhulu which is admitted by investigating officer examined as PW9. In the cross examination of PW8, he admitted that injuries sustained to PW1 are possible if a person falls on hard surface. Thus, the possibility of accused being implicated by PW1 taking advantage of injuries sustained to her elsewhere in view of the delay of 24 hours in lodging the report from the point of time of the alleged incident. There is every possibility for manipulation of the facts during the 24 hours time period.

12.In the cross examination of PW9, he deposed that statement of PW1 to 4 were handwritten and later computer printouts were taken. PW9

Asst. Sessions Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

Page No. 5 of 7 S.C.No. 1 of 2019 denied the suggestion that handwritten statement of PW1 is intentionally not filed along with charge sheet as such statement does not contain incriminating material against the accused. The learned counsel for the accused argued that initially when the statement of PW1 was recorded in the hospital no incriminating material came against the accused and later due to political influence at the instance of PW1 false case made out against the accused. It is true that the handwritten statements of PW1 to 4 stated to have been recorded by the police are not filed along with the charge sheet.

As per evidence of PW8, it was reported that PW1 was beat by unknown persons but not by known persons. Thus, the contention of the accused that defence of the accused was effected for non furnishing the first handwritten statement of PW1, need to be accepted and this weaken the case of the prosecution.

13.As per the evidence of PW1, the incident was witnessed by PW2 to 4 and they informed her husband LW1/Tallari Narsimha who lodged the report with the police. However, PW2 to 4 did not support the case of the prosecution and corroborated with the evidence of PW1. It is the evidence of PW2 to PW4 that they do not know facts of the present case. The 161

Cr.P.C statement of these witnesses are marked as Ex.P1 to P3 documents in the cross examination conducted by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor upon permission of the Court under Section 154 Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. Similarly the two witnesses to the confession cum seizure panchanama examined as PW6 and PW7 did not support the case of

Asst. Sessions Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

Page No. 6 of 7 S.C.No. 1 of 2019 the prosecution and their signatures on the proceedings are marked as

Ex.P5 to P8.

14.Through PW5 crime details form is marked as Ex.P4. Through investigating officer/PW9 report dated 20.07.2018, FIR, seizure panchanama are marked as Ex.P10 to P12 and crime weapon is marked as

MO1. However, the evidence of PW5 and 9 does not have much weight to prove the prosecution case. The record show that investigation of the present case did not prove on fair lines for absence of furnishing the handwritten statements of PW1 to 4 to the accused and filing the same with the record and alteration of Section of law from 324 to 307 IPC was done without medical evidence support. The evidence of PW1 create doubts in view of previous enmity between PW1 and accused and there being unexplained delay of 24 hours in lodging report with the police. Further, evidence of PW1 is not corroboration with the evidence of PW2 to 4.

15.For the discussion and the reason as stated above, it need to be held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 324 r/w 34 IPC on the principle of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard. Accordingly point on hand is answered against prosecution and in favour of the accused.

16.POINT No.2:

In the result, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 324 r/w 34 IPC, and they are acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The case property is MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused Nos. 1

Asst. Sessions Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

Page No. 7 of 7 S.C.No. 1 of 2019 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six (6) months in compliance to

Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of April, 2023).

Assistant Sessions Judge Chevella, R.R.District.

Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution: For Defence PW1: T. Pramila -Nil- PW2: K. Anthaiah PW3: K. Chandraiah PW4: K. Sujatha PW5: T. Srinivas PW6: G. Bikshapathi PW7: G.Praveen Kumar PW8: D.Shiva Prasad PW9: K.Shankar

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 - Nil- Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P4: Crime Details Form connecting with rough sketch Ex.P5: Signature on confession panchanama and seizure panchanama of PW6 Ex.P6: Signature on confession panchanama and seizure panchanama Ex.P7: Signature on confession panchanama and seizure panchanama of PW7 Ex.P8: Signature on confession panchanama and seizure panchanama Ex.P9: Injury Certificate Ex.P10: Report dated Ex.P11: First Information Report Ex.P12: Seizure panchanama

Material object

MO1: Two Sticks

Assistant Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District

Asst. Sessions Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

OS/47/2017

Nithesh Agarwwal vs E.Venkatesh

27 Apr 2023

Page 1 of 6 O.S.No.47 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHEVELLA,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SRI. G.V. Mahesh Nath

Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.

Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this the 27th day of April, 2023

O.S.No. 47 of 2017

Between:

Nittesh Agarwal S/o. Late Hari Prasad Aged about 33 years Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 1-7-8, RTC X road, Musheerabad Hyderabad. ….Plaintiff

And

1.E. Venkatesh S/o. Late E. Vittalaiah Aged about 47 years Occ: Agriculture

2.Edulankanti Ravi S/o. Late E. Venkataiah Aged about 36 years Occ: Agriculture, Both R/o. Yenkepally village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...Defendants

This suit coming on this day before me on 13.04.2023 in the presence of Sri.I. Nagender Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendant remained exparte and matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

J U D G E M E N T

1.The plaintiff instituted the present seeking for decree of specific performance of contract against the defendants based on agreement of sale

dated 05.05.2009. It is prayed to direct the defendants to execute registered

sale deed in respect of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Alternatively it is prayed to direct the defendants to refund sum of Rs.10,00,000/- along with 18% interest per annum from 05.05.2009 till the date of repayment

2.It is submitted that defendants offered to sell the suit schedule property for total sale consideration amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and plaintiffs

Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.

Page 2 of 6 O.S.No.47 of 2017 accepted the offer. Both the parties entered into agreement of sale on 05.05.2009 and Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants towards part sale consideration amount. It is submitted thatdefendants agreed to execute registered sale deed after the family partition or within 5 years from the date of demand by the defendants. The defendants agreed for repayment of advance sale consideration amount of Rs.10,00,,000/- @ 18% per annum interest if defendants failed to perform their part of contract. The plaintiff waited for 5 years period and thereafter approached the defendants for execution of registered sale deed but defendants promised to execute registered sale deed. It is submitted that plaintiff came to know that defendants got suit schedule property in the family partition and were trying to alienate the suit schedule property to the third parties. The plaintiff got issued legal notice on 19.12.2016 demanding the defendants to execute registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration amount of

Rs.5,00,0000/-. The defendants received the legal notice but did not give reply and come forward to execute registered sale deed. Hence, the present suit is instituted.

3.The defendants entered the appearance through their Counsel Sri

Guruva Reddy Advocate but failed to file the written statement as such proceeding against defendants went in exparte on 13.03.2018.

4. The plaintiff examined PW1, PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3 documents. After the evidence of plaintiff was reported closed, the learned counsel for the plaintiff was heard.

5.Perused the record. Now the following points arise for determination:

1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance of contract directing the defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration amount of

Rs.5,00,000/-?

Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.

Page 3 of 6 O.S.No.47 of 2017

2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for alternative relief directing the defendants to refund sum of Rs.10,00,000/- along with 18% interest per annum from 05.05.2009 till the date of repayment?

3) To what relief?

6.POINT No.1:

The Plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and testified the plaint pleadings. The agreement of sale dated 19.12.2009 is marked as Ex.A1. The legal notice and postal receipts are marked as Ex. A2 and A3. The attesting witness to Ex.A1 document is examined as PW2. It is evidence of PW2 that he acted as attesting witness to Ex.A1 document, witnessed defendants receiving advanced sale consideration amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) from plaintiff and witnessed defendants agreeing to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration amount.

7.On perusal of Ex.A1, it is observed that defendants promised to execute registered sale deed immediately on family partition or within five years to date of Ex.A1 failing which defendants agreed to repay the advance sale consideration amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) at the rate of 18% per annum within 15 days from the date of demand by the plaintiff.

8.The plaintiff pleaded that defendants got suit scheduled property in the family partition and came to know that defendants were trying to alienate to the third parties. However, except the oral testimony of PW1 there is no relevant material documents placed on record to show that defendants acquired suit scheduled property in the family partition and become its owner.

Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.

Page 4 of 6 O.S.No.47 of 2017

9.Further, defendants agreed to sell all that land in survey no. 161/part admeasuring Ac.1.13 guntas, situated at Yenkepaly village, Moinabad

Mandal, Ranga Reddy. There is no mention of boundaries under Ex.A1.

However, in the scheduled to the plaint boundaries are mentioned. But, it is not explained as to on what basis boundaries have been ascertained by the plaintiff.

10.The defendants asserted that they would acquire land in Survey No.

161/part admeasuring Ac.1.13 guntas in future as per Ex.A1 document. It is not mentioned as to how specific portion of the land with boundaries as shown in the scheduled to the plaint were ascertained without there being partition among the family member of the defendants. It is well established principle of law that unless and until the property is partitioned, the co- sharer can only sell to the extent of his share, but can not sell any specific portion of land.

11.Thus, the agreement of sale under Ex.A1 in so far as showing sell and purchase of specific portion of land (without boundaries) without partition being effected in the family of defendants, can not be legally enforced. As per Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary in nature and is governed by law of equities. When the agreement of sale under Ex.A1 was not valid for defendants not acquiring title as on agreement date and selling specific portion of land without partition being effected as on agreement date, this

Court can not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to decree specific performance directing the defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the suit scheduled property.

12.For the discussion as taken up above with reasons assigned, this court is of the considered opinion that plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance decree against the defendants directing them to execute

Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.

Page 5 of 6 O.S.No.47 of 2017 registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the suit scheduled property. Accordingly, point on hand is answered against the plaintiff.

13.POINT No.2:

Now the question that falls for consideration is as to entitlement of plaintiff for alternative relief of directing defendants to repay the advance sale consideration amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) at the rate of 18% per annum interest.

14.The plaintiff with oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 coupled with

Ex.A1 is able to prove the fact that defendants received advance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) from plaintiff on date of Ex.A1 document.

15.The plaintiff claimed interest from date of Ex.A1 which is 05.05.2009. However, as per the terms of compromise defendants agreed to pay the interest within 15 days from the date of demand by the plaintiff but not from the date of agreement. In the legal notice under Ex.A2 plaintiff demanded the defendants for execution of registered sale deed or alternatively demanded for repayment of advance sale consideration amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) at the rate of 18% per annum. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to claim interest from the date of Ex.A2 legal notice which was issued on 19.12.2016 but not from date of agreement as prayed in the plaint relief.

16.With the discussion as taken up above and for reasons assigned, this

Court is of the considered opinion that Plaintiff is entitled for alternative relief of directing defendants to refund Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten laksh only) at the rate of 18% per annum from 19.12.2016. Accordingly, point on hand is answered in favour of plaintiff.

Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.

Page 6 of 6 O.S.No.47 of 2017

17. POINT No.3:

In the result suit is partly decreed in favour of plaintiff directing the defendant No.1 and 2 to refund advance sale consideration amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) at the rate of 18% per annum from 19.12.2016 to the date of instituting the suit. Further, defendants are liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from date of suit to the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the realization on the principle sum adjudged of Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten laksh only).

The claim of the plaintiff for decree of Specific Performance against the defendant is hereby dismissed.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2023).

Senior Civil Judge

Chevella, R.R.District.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant:

PW1: Nittesh Agarwal -Nil- PW2: Darshan Daas

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff:

1.Ex.A1: is the original agreement of sale cum receipt dated 05.05.2009

2.Ex.A2: is the office copy of legal notice dated 19.12.2016

3.Ex.A3: is the original postal receipt (2Nos) dated 20.12.2016

For Defendant : - Nil -

Senior Civil Judge

Chevella, R.R.District.

Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.

SC/6/2021 Acquitted

P.S SHANKERPALLY vs P. Venkateshwar Rao@Kalyan

28 Apr 2023

Page No. 1 of 7 S.C.No. 6 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

CHEVELLA , R.R.DISTRICT

Present: SRI. G.V. MAHESH NATH Assistant Sessions Judge, Chevella, R.R.District.

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2023

SESSIONS CASE No. 6 of 2021

Name of the Complainant The State of T.S through Circle Inspector of Police, P.S.Chevella.

Name of the accused A3: Pala Vijay S/o. Late Pala Narayana, Aged 20 year Occ: Car driver, R/o. Rudrampet village, Ram Nagar Mandal, Ananthapur District, N/o. Ratnala Chervu village, MangalagiriMandal,Guntur District. A4: Pala Jashwa S/o. Narayana Age 21 years Occ: Cloth business, R/o. Rudram Bagh colony, Ananthapur District N/o. Ratnala Cheruvu village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. A6: Pala Karna Kumar @ Karna S/o. Late Narayana Age 22 years Occ: Car driver, R/o. Rudrampet basthi,AnanthapurTown, Ananthapur District, N/o. Ratnala Cheruvu village, Mangalagiri Mandal of Guntur District.

Charges U/SectionU/s 395 and 397 I.P.C

Crime. No. 41/2014

Plea of the AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence or OrderAcquittal

Prosecution conducted bySri. D.Upender, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Defence conducted bySri. B. Suresh Legal Aid Counsel

Asst. Sessions Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

Page No. 2 of 7 S.C.No. 6 of 2021

This case was committed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Chevella, vide PRC.26/2020

This case is coming before me on 13.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. D.Upender, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. B. Suresh Legal Aid Counsel for accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 and upon hearing and perusal of the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 are charged for the offence punishable under Section 395 and 397 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as IPC).

2.On intervening night of 1/2-3-2014 at about 1.30 hours accused No.1 to 13 went to the house of LW1/M.Susheela, break open the main door with granites stone and accused Nos. 1 to 3 entered the house with knifes, sticks and chilli powder by covering this faces with masks wearing hand gloves and socks to legs and caused injury to LW1/M.Susheela

LW2/M.Sathyamma,LW3/K.Laxmamma,LW4/M.Ramulu,

LW5/M.Mallesh by sprinkling chilli powder in their eyes. The accused robbed gold and cash from the house. The accused Nos. 4 to 13 kept guard watch out side of the house. Thus, accused Nos. 1 to 13 are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 395 and 397 IPC.

3.The record show that police filed charge sheet showing accused Nos.

9 to 13 as absconding. The case against accused No.5 ended in acquittal with Judgement dated 06.10.2018 vide SC No. 118/2017. The case against accused Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8 was taken up vide SC No. 6/2021. The case

Asst. Sessions Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

Page No. 3 of 7 S.C.No. 6 of 2021 against accused No. 1, 2 and 8 is slip up vide SC No. 151/2023. As such the present case is taken up only against accused No.3, 4 and 6.

4.The police conducted investigation on report lodged by PW1 on 03.02.2014. After completing the investigation, police laid their report under Section 173 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short herein after referred to as Cr.P.C.). The Learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Chevella took cognizance of the Offence punishable under Section 395 and 397 IPC vide PRC No. 26 of 2020. As the case was triable by

Court of Session, it was committed to the Court of Session, Ranga Reddy

District. The Court of Session took cognizance vide S.C.No. 6 of 2021 and made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law. The accused were supplied with copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.After hearing both sides and on examination of the accused Charges were framed under Section 394 and 397 IPC, read over and explained to the accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 in Telugu language. Accused denied the Charge and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3.

The role of each prosecution witness is like this. PW1 is the injured and complaint. PWs 2 to 5 are injured and eye witnesses. PW6 is circumstantial witness. PW7 are the panch for scene of offence and seizure panchanama.

PW8 is the investigating officer.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

Page No. 4 of 7 S.C.No. 6 of 2021

7.After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence that appeared in the prosecution evidence against them. They denied prosecution evidence as false and reported no defense evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record. Now the points that arises for determination are:

1) Whether prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 394 and 397 IPC on the principle of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard?

2) To What findings?

9.POINT No.1:

The victim and de facto complainant in the present case is examined as PW1. The evidence of PW1 is that the incident occurred about 8 years ago. On the date of incident PW1 along with PW2 to 5 was sleeping in the house and at about 1.30 (midnight) am they heard noise of door breaking. As such PW1 woke up and by that time some unknown persons entered into the house who sprinkled chilli powder on PW1 to PW5 and beat them with rods. Further, the said persons robbed cash and gold ornaments from the house of the PW1. PW1 deposed that three persons entered the house wearing face masks and hand gloves as such she could not see their faces. PW1 lodged report with the police as in Ex.P1.

10.Similarly is evidence of PW2 to PW5. The circumstantial witness examined as PW6 corroborated the evidence of PW1 to PW5 testifying the

Asst. Sessions Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

Page No. 5 of 7 S.C.No. 6 of 2021 facts that some unknown persons entered the house of PW1 and committed robbery by causing injuries to PW1 to PW5.

11.The panch for scene of offence and seizure proceedings examined as

PW7 deposed that police conducted scene of offence cum seizure proceeding in his presence as in Ex.P2 and recovered one knife, one stick, chilli powder, one grain stone, one wooden log and other items from scene of offence.

12.The investigating officer is examined as PW8. Through PW8, FIR is marked as Ex.P3. It is evidence of PW8 that accused were arrested by

Hayathnagar police wherein they confessed to have committed offence in the present case along with offences pertaining to other police stations.

13.With the evidence on record, it is observed that prosecution is able to prove the fact that robbery was committed in the house of PW1 and PW1 to

PW5 sustained injuries at the hands of the robbers. However, PW1 to PW5 failed to identify the accused as persons who committed robbery in the house of the PW1. As per the evidence PW1, the persons entered the house were wearing face masks as such she could not identify the robbers who came to her house. The case of the prosecution relies on recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused. However, prosecution failed to prove seizure of stolen property from the possession of the accused for absence of examining witness panch for confession and seizure proceedings. It is also seen from record that the stolen property could not be

Asst. Sessions Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

Page No. 6 of 7 S.C.No. 6 of 2021 marked by the prosecution as such prosecution failed to prove stolen property and recovered property are one and the same. There appears no material to connect the accused to the present case except testimony of investigating officer examined as PW8. However, the evidence of PW8 cannot be the sole basis to connect the accused with the present case as their appears no cogent evidence to connect the accused with charges levelled against the accused.

14.For the discussion and the reason as stated above, it need to be held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 395 and 397 IPC on the principle of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard. Accordingly point on hand is answered against prosecution and in favour of the accused.

15.POINT No.2:

In the result, accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 395 and 397 IPC, and they are acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

The Jail authorities are directed to release the accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 if they are not required in any other case.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of April, 2023).

Assistant Sessions Judge Chevella, R.R.District.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

Page No. 7 of 7 S.C.No. 6 of 2021

Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution: For Defence PW1: M. Sushila -Nil- PW2: M.Sathyamma PW3: M.Ramulu PW4: M. Mallesh PW5: M. Laxmi PW6: M.Nagamani PW7: J. Ramulu PW8: J. Upendhar Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: For Defence Ex.P1: Report dated 02.03.2014 - Nil- Ex.P2: Certified copy of scene of offence panchanama connecting with rough sketch Ex.P3: Certified copy of First Information Report

Material object -Nil-

Assistant Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District

Asst. Sessions Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.

OS/23/2015

D.Krishna Veni vs Goudnra Narsimulu

27 Apr 2023

Page 1 of 5 O.S.No.23 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHEVELLA,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SRI. G.V. Mahesh Nath

Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.

Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this the 27th day of April, 2023

O.S.No. 23 of 2015

Between:

D. Krishnaveni W/o. D. Balraj, Aged about 28 years Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 1-80, Khanapur village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ….Plaintiff

And

1.Goundra Narsimulu, S/o. Late G. laxmaiah Aged about 55 years Occ: Agricultural,

2.Goundra Bhaskar S/o. G. Narsimulu, Aged about 34 years Occ: Agricultural

3.Goundra Mahinder S/o. G. Narsimulu, Aged about 32 years Occ: Agricultural

4.Goundra Navender S/o. G. Narsimulu, Aged about 30 years Occ: Agricultural

5.Nakkala Kalpana W/o. N. Bhaskar Rao, Aged about 49 year Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 1-2-41/1, Gagan Mahal, Street No.16, Domalguda, Hyderabad.

6.Samatha Sasidhar S/o. S. Nanchala Rao, Aged about 37 years Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 3-5-826, 1st floor, Shahanaz Jeddy Arcade, Hyderguda, Hyderabad.

7.Sabawat Raju S/o. Late Bhadriya Aged about 36 years Occ: Agricultural R/o. H.No.6-143/1, Mokila village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

8.Varthy Kamal S/o. Tharya, Aged about 37 years Occ: Agricultural, R/o. H.No. 5-108, Mokila village Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

9.Ramakrishna Bobba S/o. Babu Nagendra Maruthi Vara Prasad, Aged about 45 years Occ: Business, R/o. D-108, Jayabheri Orange country, Financial District, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. (Defendant Nos. 7 to 9 are impleaded as per orders dated 29.11.2022 passed in IA No. 837/2015).

10.M/s Harinika Park Pvt Ltd., Rep by its Manging Director

Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.

Page 2 of 5 O.S.No.23 of 2015

K. Satyanarayana S/o. Late Laxmaiah, Aged about 67 years Occ: Business, Resident of Flat No.A-1, Trend Set villa Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

11.M/s Raja Harin Estates Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Director K. Shiva Kanchana Latha W/o. Satyanarayana, Aged about 60 years Occ: Business, Resident of Flat No.A-1, Trend Set Villa Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

12.M/s Green City Estates, Office at 8-2-598/A/1/28, 1st floor, Guru Krupa Road No.8, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Rep by its Managing Partner, K. Subba Raju S/o. Late Ranga Raju, Aged about 70 years Occ: Business, Resident of Flat No.406, Anjani Towers, Balkampet, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad.

...Defendants

This suit coming on this day before me on 18.04.2023 in the presence of Sri.S.Srinivas Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 to 12 remained exparte and matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

J U D G E M E N T

1.The plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking for preliminary decree of partition and allotment of 1/5 share in the suit schedule property along with defendant Nos. 1 to 4.

2.It is submitted that defendant No.1 who is father of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 acquired suit schedule property in the partition among his brother after death of his father Goundla Laxmaiah. Thus, defendant

No.1 acquired suit schedule property which is ancestral in nature. It is submitted that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 taking undue advantage of their names being recorded in the revenue records were trying to sell the suit schedule property. As such on 20.01.2015 plaintiff demanded for partition of suit schedule property which was refused by defendant Nos. 1 to 4. On verification of the records, plaintiff found that defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed bearing document No. 3958/2005 and 3959/2005 dated 22.03.2005 in favour of defendant Nos. 5 and 6 which was later in turn sold to defendant No. 8 to 12 under the registered documents pending the present suit. Hence, plaintiff is instituted the suit.

Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.

Page 3 of 5 O.S.No.23 of 2015

3.The proceedings against defendant No. 1 to 12 went in exparte.

4. The plaintiff examined PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A11 documents. After the evidence of plaintiff was reported closed, the learned counsel for the plaintiff was heard.

5.Perused the record. Now the following points arise for determination:

1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree of partition and allotment of 1/5 share along with defendant No. 1 to 4?

2) To what relief?

6.POINT No.1:

The plaintiff as PW1 testified the plaint pleadings. In order to show suit schedule property to be ancestral property devolving from grand father of plaintiff Goundra Laxmaiah, plaintiff filed Kasra pahani for the year 1954-55, pahani for the year 1965-65 reflecting name of Goundra

Laxmaiah as pattadar of suit schedule property as in Ex.A1 and A2.

Subsequently name of defendant No.1 has been mutated in the revenue records in respect of suit schedule property as seen under Ex.A3 to A8 documents. Thus, plaintiff is able to prove suit schedule property to be ancestral property having devolved from her grand father Goundla

Laxmamma.

7.The defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 in respect of suit schedule property as seen under

Ex.A6 and A7 documents. During the pendency of the present suit defendant Nos. 5 and 6 executed registered documents in favour of defendant No. 7 to 12 as seen under Ex.A8 to A11 document. The defendant No.1 does not have exclusive right to execute registered sale deed in Ex.A6 and A7 in favour of defendant Nos. 5 and 6. Thus, the sale deed under Ex.A6 and A7 and subsequent registered document will be bind

Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.

Page 4 of 5 O.S.No.23 of 2015 only defendant No.1 to extent of his share and defendant No. 5 to 12 can workout the equities in the share to be alloted to defendant No.1.

8.For the discussion taken above, it is required to be held that plaintiff is able to prove suit schedule property to be ancestral Hindu Joint undivided family property and that plaintiff is entitled for 1/5 share along with defendant No. 1 to 4 over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, point on hand is answered plaintiff against the defendants.

9.POINT No.2:

In the result, the Suit Schedule Property is declared as Joint Hindu

Undivided Family Property of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 4. As a consequence, a preliminary decree is granted by dividing the Suit Schedule

Property into five equal shares with good and bad qualities and by allotting one share each to the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 4. In the circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2023).

Senior Civil Judge

Chevella, R.R.District.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant:

PW1: D. Krishnaveni -Nil-

Exhibits Marked For Plaintiff:

1.Ex.A1: is the certified copy of Kasra Pahani for the year 1954-55

2.Ex.A2: is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1965-66

3.Ex.A3: is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-91

Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.

Page 5 of 5 O.S.No.23 of 2015

4.Ex.A4: is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2002-03

5.Ex.A5: is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2014-15

6.Ex.A6: is the certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 3958/2005 dated 23.05.2005

7.Ex.A7: is the certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 3959/2005 dated 23.05.2005

8.Ex.A8: is the certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 1046/2015 dated 30.03.2015

9.Ex.A9: is the certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 10074/2005 dated 03.11.2005

10.Ex.A10: is the certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.1065/2007 dated 25.01.2007

11.Ex.A11: is the certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 4053/2012 dated 12.11.2012.

For Defendant : - Nil -

Senior Civil Judge

Chevella, R.R.District.

Senior Civil Judge, Chevella.R.R.Dist.

H.M.O.P/27/2022 Petition Allowed

Smt. Devika @ Nikita vs Verthya Shankar

28 Apr 2023

Page No. 1 of 4 HMOP No. 27 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT CHEVELLA,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Sri. G.V. Mahesh Nath

Senior Civil Judge,

Chevella, Ranga Reddy District

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2023

H.M.O.P. No. 27 of 2022

(HOMP No. 140 of 2021 filed at Senior Civil Judge, Court Vikarabad)

Between:- Devika @ Nikita W/o. Verthya Shankar Aged 27 years Occ: Housewife R/o. Sachcha Souda Apartments, Balaji Nagar Dhankawadi, Pune City, Pune Maharashtra State.

...Petitioner No.1

And

Verthya Shankar S/o. Verthya Laxman Aged 30 years Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 6-101, Mokila Thanda Shankarpally Mandal, Vikarabad District Telangana State.

...Petitioner No.2

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 03.04.2023 in the presence of Sri G.Narayana Goud, Advocate for the petitioners and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The present case is transferred from Senior Civil Judge Court,

Vikarabad vide HMIOP No. 140 of 2021. On receipt of the file, new number is assigned vide HMOP NO. 27 of 2022.

2. The present petition is filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage

Act 1955 by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 praying this Court to pass decree of divorce dissolving the marriage dated 26.05.2019 between the petitioners.

Senior Civil Judge,

Chevella, Ranga Reddy District

Page No. 2 of 4 HMOP No. 27 of 2022

3. It is submitted that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The marriage was performed on 26.05.2019 at P.R.R.Gardens Mokila village,

Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as per Hindu rites and customs.

4. It is submitted that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 lived for few months and thereafter there were incompatibility issues between the petitioners that were irreconcilable in spite of best efforts made by the petitioners. It is submitted that petitioners were living separately since on 30.11.2020.

5.That the petitioners decided to take mutual divorce by settling the claims between them. Hence, present petition is filed.

6.Both the petitioners after completing cooling period of 6 months have appeared before this Court on 03.01.2023. This court attempted to reconcile the petitioners but such attempt was failed.

7.Under enquiry petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are examined as PW1 and 2 and Ex.P1 document marked.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

Now the point for determination are:

1) Whether petitioners are entitled for decree of divorce under

Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955?

2) To What relief?

Senior Civil Judge,

Chevella, Ranga Reddy District

Page No. 3 of 4 HMOP No. 27 of 2022

9.POINT No.1

It is noted that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The marriage was performed on 26.05.2019 in P.R.R.Gardens Mokila village,

Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as per Hindu rites and customs. That petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 lived for a period of few months and thereafter there were incompatibility issues between the petitioners that were irreconcilable in spite of best efforts made by the petitioners. The petitioners were living separately since on 30.11.2020. Both the petitioners decided to take mutual divorce by settling the claims between them.

10.PW1 and PW2 testified in their evidence that they were married on 26.05.2019 and wedding invitation card is marked as Ex.P1. Further, it is evidence of PW1 and PW2 that there are incompatibility issues between them and same remained irreconcilable despite best efforts made by petitioners and their well wishers. It is noted that as per the petition contents, petitioners are blessed with one boy and custody of the boy is agreed to be kept with petitioner No.1 till the boy attain age of majority.

The maintenance of the boy will be taken care of the both petitioners. Even, after cooling period of 6 months there was no reconciliation between the parties.

11.Taking into consideration the material available on record, this court is of the considered opinion that there is no chance for reunion between

Senior Civil Judge,

Chevella, Ranga Reddy District

Page No. 4 of 4 HMOP No. 27 of 2022 petitioners Nos. 1and 2. Hence, there appears no option except to grant divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly point is answered.

12.POINT No.2

In the result, petition allowed granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of petitioners solemnized on 26.05.2019. In the circumstance of the case there shall be no order as to cost.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of April, 2023).

Senior Civil Judge,

Chevella, Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioner Respondent PW1: Devika @ Nikita -Nil- PW2: Verthya Shankar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For petitioner For respondent

Ex.P1: Wedding invitation card -Nil-

Senior Civil Judge,

Chevella, Ranga Reddy District

Senior Civil Judge,

Chevella, Ranga Reddy District

Order Record 71 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC/1/2019	SHO.PS.Chevella vs Gajulagudem Yadaiah	28 Apr 2023	Judgment	Acquitted
SC/6/2021	P.S SHANKERPALLY vs P. Venkateshwar Rao@Kalyan	28 Apr 2023	Judgment	Acquitted
H.M.O.P/27/2022	Smt. Devika @ Nikita vs Verthya Shankar	28 Apr 2023	Judgment	Petition Allowed
OS/23/2015	D.Krishna Veni vs Goudnra Narsimulu	27 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
OS/47/2017	Nithesh Agarwwal vs E.Venkatesh	27 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
OS/60/2014	Darshan Dass vs Smt.Lalitha	27 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
SC/8/2021	SHO.PS.Shabad vs Chilkamarry Madhu	13 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/36/2022	Sureddy Uday kiran Reddy vs Allada Srialtha	12 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
SC/212/2015	The state of A.P through P.S Shabad. vs Mukku ramulamma	03 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
SC/63/2015	Sri.Mangali Narsimulu vs Mangali yadagiri	31 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
OS/229/2022	Bathuku Madhusudhan vs Smt. Gouri Bai @ Ghore	29 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
OS/300/2022	Tonda Ravi vs Kunti Vittalaiah	29 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
OS/457/2022	Basa Narsimulu vs Basa krishna	29 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
SC/75/2019	SHO.PS.Chevella vs Palgutta Yadaiah	24 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
SC/142/2021	SHO.PS.Shabad vs Mogutam Anjaiah	24 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
OS/128/2017	Telangana grameena bank vs Neelamma	23 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
OS/130/2017	D.Jyothi Kumar vs Rangamma Podupu sangam	23 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
OS/107/2017	Doddi Laxmi vs K.satyamma and 6 others	20 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
OS/163/2013	Vadde Paramaeshwari vs Vasdde ananthaiah and 5 others	20 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
SC/38/2018	Raheem khan vs Saleem khan and other	17 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
OS/59/2011	Mrs.Dr.Amena Akhtari vs Mohd. Hamed Rizwan	15 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
SC/54/2018	SHO.PS.Shankerpally vs Vadde Narayana @ Narender	10 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
SC/116/2016	Sri.K.Satyanarayana Rao vs Ameth pandey	10 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
SC/70/2021	SHO.PS.Shabad vs Puntikura Babu @ Babaiah	09 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
OS/173/2008	Chitukula Jyothi vs Kolam dasharatha Reddy	02 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
S.O.P/4/2022	Doswada Laxmamma vs Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank Chevella Branch)	02 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
OS/167/2017	chevella Pushpamma vs Saddi Ananth Reddy	28 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
OS/169/2014	Tati Konda mohan Reddy vs Kummari kuntala pochaiah and 2 others	27 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
S.O.P/1/2022	Fathima Bee vs The superintendent, Veterinary Hospital, Shankarpally RAngareddy District - 501203	23 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
OS/34/2006	M.chandra shekar reddy vs K.Laxma Reddy	20 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
SC/225/2012	the state of A.P through P.S.shankarpally vs Dabbadi chandraiah	17 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
OS/96/2009	Bansdari Sravanthi vs Chilkuri Mallaiah	07 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
SC/35/2021	SHO.PS.Shankerpally vs Mailaram Kistaiah	03 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
SC/71/2021	SHO.PS.Shankerpally vs Kandhada Srinivas Reddy	03 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
SC/73/2021	SHO.PS.Shankerpally vs Begari srinivas	03 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
OS/35/2008	Smt.Buchamma vs M.Bagaiah	02 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
OS/36/2008	Smt.Jangamma vs Vsmadduri shankariah	02 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
OS/37/2008	Smt.Kamalamma vs Smt.Madduri Jangamma	02 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
SC/62/2018	SHO.PS.Chevella vs Mohammed Yousuf Kuresh	27 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
SC/65/2018	SHO.PS.Chevella vs Mala Shivaiah	27 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
SC/108/2017	Kummari Md.Gousia begum vs Md.Sarwar	27 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
OS/39/2007	Smt. a. Usha Ratnam vs Pancha lingala Malla Reddy	25 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
EP/18/2022	K. Balamani vs Patti Manemma	18 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
OS/40/2014	P.Venkata Ganesh vs B.Sridevi	18 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
OS/41/2016	Mangali Amrutha vs Mangali adivvamma	18 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
OS/156/2016	ayavula mallikarjuna reddy vs Smt.Goribee	18 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/35/2022	Gadda Rajender Reddy vs Pedda Golla varalaxmi	18 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
SC/85/2017	Setla nagamani vs Nukala Raju	17 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
SC/117/2017	Sabhavath Padma vs Vssabhavath Ravi	17 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
SC/81/2016	The state of telangana through P.s chevella vs Balagalla Mittaiah	13 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
SC/145/2021	SHO.PS.Shabad vs Koninti Vitalaiah	12 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
OS/51/2017	E.Kalavathi vs Kavali Laxmaiah	11 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
OS/119/2011	M.Archana vs Konda Krishna Reddy and 5 others	11 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
OS/185/2014	Md.Abdul Bari and another vs Syd.Khasim	11 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
OS/164/2016	K.Pakroddin and 2 others vs Shaik Bandde ali	09 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
SC/80/2015	Smt.Are Lingamma vs Munnuru Ravi	16 Dec 2022	Judgment	—
SC/104/2015	Sri.chilkamarry balraj vs M.Venkataiah	16 Dec 2022	Judgment	—
SC/76/2016	Sri.Chityala ram Chandraiah vs Borra raju and 4 others	13 Dec 2022	Judgment	—
OS/201/2007	M.Balakrishnaiah vs M.Ramaiah	06 Dec 2022	Judgment	—
OS/132/2006	Smt.Muthyapu Balamani vs Mutypul chokkaiah	05 Dec 2022	Judgment	—
SC/17/2012	Prodduturi Swarupa vs J.Yadaiah	28 Nov 2022	Judgment	—
SC/22/2019	SHO.PS.Chevella vs Pathi Manaiah	28 Nov 2022	Judgment	—
SC/23/2018	Narsimlu madela vs Maddela Ramaiah	28 Nov 2022	Judgment	—
OS/256/2007	Ramdas Ramchandraiah vs Ramdas chennaiah	24 Nov 2022	Judgment	—
OS/28/2010	Master Bantu srikanth vs Smt.Annemoni Parvatamma	21 Nov 2022	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/17/2022	Smt. Pichakuntla Sumithra vs Pichakuntla Jagannatham	21 Nov 2022	Judgment	—
SC/119/2016	the state of Telangana through Shankerpally vs Janumala Naresh	15 Nov 2022	Judgment	—
SC/182/2014	Pulapally Ananthaiah goud vs Pulapally laxmi	15 Nov 2022	Judgment	—
OS/192/2007	Guttthi yellamma and 5 others vs Ushagoni Mallaiah	02 Nov 2022	Judgment	—
OS/224/2008	Arunga Ganga Raju and 2 others vs C.Balaram	02 Nov 2022	Judgment	—
OS/260/2007	M.Venkataiah vs Vsamsdapuram Ramulyu	02 Nov 2022	Judgment	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2023		9
Mar 2023		18
Feb 2023		12
Jan 2023		18
Dec 2022		6
Nov 2022		14

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri.G.V.Mahesh Nath handled?

Sri.G.V.Mahesh Nath has handled 77 court orders since 2022 at Chevella, ADJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 9 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri.G.V.Mahesh Nath hear?

Based on available records, Sri.G.V.Mahesh Nath primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Chevella, ADJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri.G.V.Mahesh Nath currently posted?

Sri.G.V.Mahesh Nath is posted as Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,Chevella at Chevella, ADJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri.G.V.Mahesh Nath available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri.G.V.Mahesh Nath are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri.G.V.Mahesh Nath dispose cases?

Sri.G.V.Mahesh Nath disposes approximately 9 cases per month, based on 77 orders handled over their tenure at Chevella, ADJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri.G.V.Mahesh Nath serving?

Sri.G.V.Mahesh Nath has been serving at Chevella, ADJ Court Complex since 2022.

Case Types

OS 51%

SC 40%

H 5%

S 3%

EP 1%

Posting History

Aug 2022 — Apr 2023

Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,Chevella · 77 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 2

Petition Allowed 1

Other Judges at this Court

Mr. Uppadhyay Vijay Kumar

Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of Firs...

4 orders

Ms. Suman Grewal

Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistr...

0 orders

Sri K. Dasharatha Ramaiah

Senior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Additional Chief Judic...

111 orders

Sri. B. Srinivasulu

Additional District and Sessions Judge CourtChevel...

6 orders

← View all judges at Chevella, ADJ Court Complex