Ms.K.Hema

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PATTIKONDA

Present: Smt T. Jyothsna Devi.,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathikonda.

F.A.C.Civil Judge, (Junior Division),Alur. Friday, the 30th day of January, 2026.

O.S.No.190/2025

Between:

B.Jayamma D/o. Late B.Venkateswarulu, W/o. B.Bhaskar Rao, Hindu, aged about 60 years, R/o. Behind Old Bus-Stand, Kottala Geri, Alur village and Mandal,

Kurnool District. …. Plaintiff

And

K.Chinnamma, D/o. Late Gurreppa, Hindu, aged about 59 years, Sweeper, Govt, Employee, Municipality Office, Guntakal, R/o. Bank Colony, Bhashyam School Backside, Guntakal Town,

Anantapur District. …. Defendant

This suit came on 23.01.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Ravi Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants having remained set exparte; and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.12,36,884/- along with subsequent interest and costs basing on promissory note.

2

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

On 13.02.2023 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,22,750/- in cash from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. for the purpose of her family expenses and executed demand ‘A’ promissory note in favour of plaintiff Alur village and Mandal. Again on 05.08.2023 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. for the purpose of her family expenses and executed demand ‘B’ promissory note in favour of plaintiff at Alur village and Mandal.

Again on 20.08.2023 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. for the purpose of her family expenses and executed demand ‘C’ promissory note in favour of plaintiff at Alur village and Mandal. Again on 15.09.2023 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. for the purpose of her family expenses and executed demand ‘D’ promissory note in favour of plaintiff at Alur village and Mandal.

Again on 12.12.2023 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,37,000/- in cash from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. for the purpose of her family expenses and executed demand ‘E’ promissory note in favour of 3 plaintiff at Alur village and Mandal. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of loan amount.

3.Defendant was set exparte in the present suit. Though the summons was served her personally.

4.In support of her case, plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6.

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the material available on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?”

POINT:

7. Plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and she reiterated the averments of the plaint in her chief examination affidavit. She produced Ex.A1 original demand ‘A’ promissory note dt.13.12.2022 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,22,750/-.

Ex.A.2 is the original demand ‘B’ promissory note dt.05.08.2023 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff for

Rs.2,00,000/-.Ex.A.3 is the original demand ‘C’ promissory note dt.20.08.2023 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff for

Rs.2,00,000/-.Ex.A.4 is the original demand ‘D’ promissory note dt.15.09.2023 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff for

Rs.2,00,000/-.Ex.A.5 is the original demand ‘E’ promissory note dt.1,37,000/- executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff for 4

Rs.2,00,000/-.Ex.A.6 is the part payment endorsement made on the back side of the original ‘A’ promissory note on 13.02.2024 of

Rs.58,920/- being the interest amount towards principal amount of

Ex.A1 and having signature of the defendant. PW1 categorically deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,22,750/- under ‘A’ promissory note and Rs.2,00,000/- under ‘B’ promissory note Rs.2,00,000/- under ‘C’ promissory note Rs.2,00,000/- ‘D’ promissory note, Rs.1,37,000/- under ‘D’ promissory note.

Rs.1,37,000/- under ‘E’ promissory note and executed Exs.A1 to A.5 in favour of her. Thereafter, defendant failed to repay the said amount covered under Exs.A1 to A5. The evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. In fact, though the summons of the defendant served on her personally but defendant did not appear before the

Court and contest the suit and hence she was set exparte. On perusal of evidence of PW1 and Exs.A1 to A6, it is clear that the defendant borrowed the amount covered under Exs.A1 to A6, and later she failed to repay the said amount. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled the suit amount as prayed for.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.12,36,884/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.8,59,750/-(‘A’ prmissory note

Rs.1,22,750/- + ‘B’ promissory note 2,00,000/- + ‘C’ promissory 5 note Rs.2,00,000/-+ ‘D’ promissory note promissory note

Rs.2,00,000/- ‘E’ Promissory note +Rs.1,37,000/-).

Typed to my dictation directly by the Personal Assistant, Corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court, this 30th day of January, 2026.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Pattikonda

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1-B. Jayamma

For Defendant:

-None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Original demand ‘A’ promissory note dt.13.12.2022 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,22,750/-. Ex.A.2: Original demand ‘B’ promissory note dt.05.08.2023 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.A.3: Original demand ‘C’ promissory note dt.20.08.2023 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.A.4: Original demand ‘D’ promissory note dt.15.09.2023 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.A.5: Original demand ‘E’ promissory note dt.1,37,000/- executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/-.

6

Ex.A.6 : Part payment endorsement made on the back side of the original ‘A’ promissory note on 13.02.2024 of Rs.58,920/- being the interest amount towards principal amount of Ex.A1 and having signature of the defendant.

For Defendant: Nil

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Pattikonda 7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PATTIKONDA

Present: Smt T. Jyothsna Devi.,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathikonda.

F.A.C.Civil Judge, (Junior Division),Alur. Friday, the 30th day of January, 2026.

O.S.No.190/2025

Between:

B.Jayamma D/o. Late B.Venkateswarulu, W/o. B.Bhaskar Rao, Hindu, aged about 60 years, R/o. Behind Old Bus-Stand, Kottala Geri, Alur village and Mandal,

Kurnool District. …. Plaintiff

And

K.Chinnamma, D/o. Late Gurreppa, Hindu, aged about 59 years, Sweeper, Govt, Employee, Municipality Office, Guntakal, R/o. Bank Colony, Bhashyam School Backside, Guntakal Town,

Anantapur District. …. Defendant

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.12,36,884/- along with subsequent interest and costs basing on promissory note.

Plaint presented on 04.08.2025 and filed on 05.08.2025. Jurisdiction value of the suit is Rs.8,59,750/- and a Court fee of Rs.24,830/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P. Court Fee and Suits 8

Valuation Act, 1956.

This suit came on 23.01.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Ravi Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained set exparte; and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court the Decree as follows:-

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with cost.

2. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.12,36,884/- with subsequent interest at 12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization on the principal amount Rs.8,59,750/-;( ‘A’ promissory note Rs.1,22,750/- + ‘B’ promissory note Rs.2,00,000/- + ‘C’ promissory note Rs.2,00,000/-+ ‘D’ promissory note Rs.2,00,000/-+ ‘E’ promissory note Rs.1,37,000/-).

3. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.44,502/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 30 th day of January, 2026.

Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Pattikonda. F.A.C.Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Alur.

9

MEMO OF COSTS

For Plaintiff Defendant Rs. set exparte Rs. Stamp for Plaint 24,830-00- Stamp for Power 2-002-00 Sr. Pleader’s Fee 19,400-00 Not certified Service of Process 70-00-

Type charges 100-00 Writing charges 100-00 Total Rs.Rs. 44,502-002-00

Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Pattikonda. F.A.C.Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Alur.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PATTIKONDA

Present: Smt T. Jyothsna Devi.,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathikonda.

F.A.C.Civil Judge, (Junior Division),Alur. Friday, the 30th day of January, 2026.

O.S.No.118/2025

Between: Thalari Nagamma, W/o. T.Prasad, Hindu, aged about 40 years, wife, R/o. Bapuram (Village and P), Halahari Mandal, Kurnool District. … Plaintiff

and

1.Dammuru Hanumanthappa S/o. D.Maranna, Hindu, aged about 60 years.

2. Beldona Krishna Murthy S/o. Lingappa, Hindu, aged about 46 years, Cultivator.

3. Vadde Basappa S/o. V.Hanumanthappa,

Hindu, aged about 58 years, Cultivator...Defendants.

All defendants are R/o. Janatha Colony, Bapuram village, Halaharvi Mandal, Kurnool District.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri H.Vayujeevothama Rao Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant remained ex-parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following : :: JUDGMENT :: This suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining the defendants and their men servants etc, from interning into the plaint schedule open space, by way of permanent injunction .

2.The case of the plaintiff in nut shell is that :-

The plaintiff is the patta holder of the plaint schedule land. The Gram

Panchayathi of Bapuram village ascertained the rights of the plaintiff and permitted her to construct a house in the plaint schedule open space. Originally the patta of house cite was allotted in favour of plaintiff’s husband T.Prasad, later the government, constructed a pacca building for a school in the name of R.D.T.

(sponsored by the Government) the patta given in favour of T.Prasad was canceled and a separate patta for house construction in another place was given in favour of plaintiff as she has no house at Bapuram village. The patta place was given to

Tahsildar Halahari Mandal dated 19.08.2017 in favour of plaintiff and proceedings of Tahsildar, 19.08.2017. The allotment of house site patta the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule place and she is making arrangement to construct a house in the place as she is badly in need of a house, as she is poor and unable to meet the family needs at Bapuram village. The defendants are no way concerned with the plaint schedule land and they are not in good terms with the plaintiff and her family for the reasons not known to the plaintiff, on 10.05.2025 at about 08.00 a.m. the plaintiff went to the plaint schedule open space with a view to clean the area for laying foundation stone for the construction of a house with the assistance of coolies, and beldars of Bapuram village the defendants who are strangers to the suit schedule open space and they want to grab the schedule places in one way or other did not allow the plaintiff to clean the place and not allow the Beldars to proceed with the work. Then the plaintiff showed all her records to the defendants and requested them not to obstruct for the construction of house, but the defendants who are very powerful persons having political support at Bapuram village, stated openly that they will not allow the plaintiff for the construction as stated earlier. Hence, plaintiff returned from the schedule pace and held a panchayath at Bapuram village with regard to schedule place and the defendants refused to attend the panchayath.

Hence, this suit is filed.

3.Defendants remained exparte in the present suit though the summons were served to the defendants.

4.In support of the case of plaintiff, plaintiff herself was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2.

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the material available on record.

POINT NO.1 :

6.Plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and she reiterated the averments of the plaint in her chief examination affidavit. She produced Ex.A1 and A2. Ex.A1 is the original patta issued by Tahsildar of Halahari dt.19.08.2017. Ex.A2 is the sketch prepared by the Gramapanchayath sachivalayam, Bapuram village. PW1 testified that in order to disprove the allegations made by the plaintiff, though an ample opportunity was given, defendants failed to appear before the court, hence they were set-exparte. The evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 clearly proved the case of plaintiff.

Hence, it can be safely concluded that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim against the defendants.

7. As the civil law is governed by preponderance of probabilities, unless and until the case proved by the plaintiff is disproved by the defendants, it can be safely held that preponderance of probabilities is in favour of plaintiff.

8. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants by way of granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, servants etc from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s over the plaint schedule open space.

Typed to dictation to stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30th day of January, 2026.

C ivil Judge (Junior Division), Pathikonda. F.A.C. Civil Judge, (Junior Division),Alur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS: PW.1 : Talari NagammaNone

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF : Ex.A.1 : Original patta issued by Tahsildar of Halahari dt.19.08.2017.

Ex.A.2 : Sketch prepared by the Gramapanchayath Sachivalayam, Bapuram village.

FOR DEFENDANTS : -Nil-

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathikonda.

F.A.C.Civil Judge, (Junior Division),Alur.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PATTIKONDA

Present: Smt T. Jyothsna Devi.,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathikonda.

F.A.C.Civil Judge, (Junior Division),Alur. Friday, the 30th day of January, 2026.

O.S.No.118/2025

Between: Thalari Nagamma, W/o. T.Prasad, Hindu, aged about 40 years, wife, R/o. Bapuram (Village and P), Halahari Mandal, Kurnool District. … Plaintiff

and

1.Dammuru Hanumanthappa S/o. D.Maranna, Hindu, aged about 60 years.

2. Beldona Krishna Murthy S/o. Lingappa, Hindu, aged about 46 years, Cultivator.

3. Vadde Basappa S/o. V.Hanumanthappa,

Hindu, aged about 58 years, Cultivator...Defendants.

All defendants are R/o. Janatha Colony, Bapuram village, Halaharvi Mandal, Kurnool District.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining the defendants and their men servants etc, from interning into the plaint schedule open space, by way of permanent injunction .

Plaint presented on 15.05.2025 and numbered on 15.05.2025. Jurisdiction value of Rs.25,000/- and Court fee of Rs.1,586/- is paid under Section 26 (C ) of A.P.

Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri

H.Vayujeevothama Rao Advocate for the plaintiff and defendants remained ex- parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth the decree as follows:-

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of plaintiff and the defendants, their men, servants etc, be and are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule open space; and

1. That the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,788-00 towards the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 30th day of January, 2026.

Civil Judge(Junior Division),Pathikonda.

F.A.C.Civil Judge, (Junior Division)ALur.

MEMO OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant Rs. -Exparte -

Stamp for Plaint1586-00- Stamp for Power 2-00 2-00 Pleader’s Fee1000-00 - Service of Process 100-00 - Writing charges 50-00 Type charges 50-00

Total Rs.Rs. 2,788 -00Rs.2-00

SCHEDULE

A open space situated at Bapuram village Gram Panchayathi limits within the Sub- Registration limits of Alur and within the Registration District of Kurnool with the following meets and bounds as under.

SL.No. Sy.No. Plot No. Nature Kind Extent

1 39/A 168 Janatha House colony Sakaru Punji 0.03 cents.

Civil Judge(Junior Division),Pathikonda.

F.A.C.Civil Judge, (Junior Division)ALur.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ALUR.

Present : MS. K. HEMA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alur

Wednesday, this the 10th day of December, 2025

P.R.C.NO.10/2024

State: Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Holagunda Police Station.

.. Complainant

-vs-

1) Boya Sekhar, age 25 years, S/o. Boya Pampaiah (A1)

2) Chakali Suresh, age 24 years, S/o. Chakali Mallikarjuna (A2)

3) Chakali Ravi, age 23 years, S/o. Chakali Mallikarjuna (A3)

4) Chakali Siddeta, age 28 years, S/o Chakali Mallikarjuna (A4)

5) Boya Siddappa, age 21 years, S/o Pampaiah (A5)

6) Chakali Chinna, age 30 years, S/o. Chakali Mallikarjuna (A6)

7) Chakali Uligappa, age 36 years, S/o. Chakali Siddappa (A7)

8) Kuruva Chinna Manju, age 24 years, S/o. Chinna Koti (A8)

9) Kuruva Pedda Manju, age 30 years, S/o. Kuruva Koti (A9)

10) Boya Yuvaraju, age 30 years, S/o. Boya Ramudu (A10)

11) Vadde Ramanjini, age 23 years, S/o. Karreppa (A11)

12) P.Chidananada, age 62 years, S/o. P.Pavadappa (A12)

13) Bestha Nagaraju, age 22 years, S/o. Lakshmanna (A13)

14) K.Mallaiah, age 35 years, S/o. Sunkappa (A14)

15) Chennabasava, age 26 years, S/o. Thippanna (A15)

16) A.E., Narasimha Prasad, age 35 years, S/o. Eranna (A16)

17) D.Ravi, age 20 years, S/o. D.Venkatesh (A17)

18) Kaki Seethappa, age 38 years, S/o. Kaki Nagappa (A18)

19) Thotha Gadilingappa, age 30 years, S/o. T.Siddappa (A19)

20) J.Hanumappa, age 50 years, S/o. Adi Basappa (A20)

21) B.Shivaraj, age 30 years, S/o. B.Yellappa (A21)

22) B.Sreenivasulu, age 20 years, S/o. Hampaiah (A22) 2

23) K.Devaraj, age 25 years, S/o. Veeresh (A23)

24) B.Malli, (Absconding) (A24)

25) B.Ambresh, (Absconding) (A25)

26) K.Bhaskar, age 20 years, S/o. Anjineya (A26)

27) S.Vijay, age 29 years, S/o. Thippanna (A27)

28) R.Sidda, age 20 years, S/o. Yellappa (A28)

The accused A10 & A11 are the residents of Valmiki Nagar Adoni Town, accused A1 to A9 and A12 to A28 are the residents of Holagunda Village and Mandal.

… Accused Nos.1 to 28

This case is coming on this day before me for committal in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri B. Laxmikanth and Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Advocates for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

:: O R D E R::

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Holagunda P.S filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.38/2022, U/Secs.147, 148, 324, 307 r/w 149 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the charge sheet is as under;

(a) The de-facto complainant/K. Wahid/LW.1 is the President of Jamiya

Mosque, Holagunda and is resident of Holagunda village.

On 16.04.2022, during the holy month of Ramzan a large gathering of

Muslim devotees attend the Jamia Mosque for leaving their fasting (Iftar) and offering prayers. The Hindu Community decided to organize Hanuman

Shobayatra in Holagunda village and mandal on the eve of Hanuman

Jayanthi.

The de-facto complainant informed to all the Muslim devotees who are coming to leave their fasting (Iftar) in the Mosque and go to their houses after attending the prayers earlier to the arrival of Hanuman Shobha Yatra 3 near to the mosque. Accordingly, Muslim devotees went to house after attending to the prayers prior to the arrival of Hanuman Shobha Yatra except

LW2 to LW12 who are attending to the prayers slowly in the Jamia Mosque,

Holagunda.

On the same day evening on the eve of Hanuman Jayanthi A1 to A28 who belongs to RSS, Bhajrangdal and Viswa Hindu Parishath organized rally of Hanuman Shobhayathra at about 19.15 hours at Holagund and reached in front of Jamia Mosque and stopped at the Mosque. The accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly by raising slogans as “Jai Sree Ram –

Jai Sree Ram” with intent to provoke the religious hatred and also saying as “Holagunda Gramamlo Ee Muslim Naa Kodukuladi Athi Ekkuvai Poyindi,

Kaabatti Ee Muslimlanu Champesthe Manakur Adduvundadu, Alage Hindu

Rashtra Sthapana Jaruguthundi”.

Further, the accused in furtherance of their common object to kill the

Community people armed with stones and bricks and hurled the stones and bricks against LW1 to LW12 and on Jamia Mosque and tried to criminally trespass into the mosque. In this incident LW1 to LW12 sustained injuries.

Then A1 to A28 left from the scene of offence.

Based on the written complaint of LW1, the S.I of Police, Holagunda

P.S/LW14 registered a case in Cr.No.38/2023, U/Secs.147, 148, 324, 307 r/w 149 of IPC and investigated into. Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file U/Secs.147, 148, 324, 307 r/w 34

IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 28.

4.On the appearance of all the accused the copies of documents were furnished to them, as required U/S 207 Cr. PC.

5. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

6.On perusal of the entire case records, there is a prima-facie case made out against the accused Nos. 1 to 28 for the offence U/Secs.147, 148, 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC, out of which, the offence U/Sec.307 of IPC is 4 exclusively triable by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions. Therefore, the case against the accused Nos. 1 to 28 is committed to the Hon'ble Court of

Sessions, Kurnool Division U/S 209 (a) of Cr.PC.

7. The accused Nos. 1 to 28 are on bail and they are directed to be on bail till the conclusion of the trial, under section 209 (b) of Cr.P.C.

8. The office is directed to submit the case records and the material objects if any, to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Kurnool as required under section 209 (c) Cr.P.C. and further directed to notify the Public Prosecutor about the committal of the case to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Kurnool, as required under section 209 (d) Cr.P.C.

9. On enquiry, the accused reported that they have got means to engage counsel to defend the case against them before the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 10 th day of December, 2025

SD/-MS. K. HEMA

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Alur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

-NIL-

SD/-MS. K. HEMA

JMFC, Alur // TRUE COPY//

JMFC, Alur

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DIV), ALUR

Present: - SMT.T.JYOTHSNA DEVI,

Civil Judge ( Jr.Div), Pathikonda

FAC/Civil Judge ( Jr.Div), Alur

TUESDAY, the 20th day of JANUAARY, 2026

O.S.No.208/2022

01 Jambulapati Anasuya, W/o. Late k. Linganna. Hindu, aged about 52 years, house wife, R/o. H.No.2/18, -----Plaintiff Kuruva geri, Bantanahal village, Chippagiri mandal,

Kurnool District -VERSUS- 01 Kuruva Narayanamma, W/o. Late Kukruva Naganna,

Hindu, aged about 80 years, R/o. Dhonekal village,

Vidapanakallu mandal, Anantapur district 02 K. Lakshmi Devi, W/o. K. Mallaiah, Hindu, aged about 63 years, R/o.Gula Palyam village, Vajrakaruru mandal,, Anantapur district. ------- Defendants 03 G.Mallesh, S/o. G.Thippaiah, husband of late

Yerramma, aged about 60 years, R/o.Belaguppa village and mandal, Anantapur district.

04 M.Devamma, W/o. Devendra, Hindu, aged about 52 years, R/o. Narasapuram village, Guntakal mandal,

Anantapur district.

05 K. Savitramma, W/o. Krishnamurthy, Hindu, aged about 47 years, R/o. Dhonekal village, Vidapanakallu mandal, Anantapur district *****

This is suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants to pass a preliminary decree for 1/6th share of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule properties, and to appoint commissioner to divide the plaint schedule properties into 1/6th share each and allot plaintiff’s share, and for costs of the suit, and such other relief or reliefs, and for costs of the suit.

This suit came before me on 20-01-2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri.R.V.Yugandhar and Sri. B.Thimmaiah, Advocates for the plaintiff and in the presence of Sri. A.Madhava Krishna, Advocate for Defendants

No.1 and Sri. G.Shakeer Basha, Advocate for defendant No.5, and

Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are remained exparte on 27.01.2023, and this court, delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff is present. Not press memo filed and recorded. In the result, suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Written by me in the open court, this the 20 th day of January,2026.

Civil Judge ( Jr.Div),

Alur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

“No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side”

C.J (Jr.Div),

Alur

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DIV), ALUR

Present: - SMT.T.JYOTHSNA DEVI,

Civil Judge ( Jr.Div), Pathikonda

FAC/Civil Judge ( Jr.Div), Alur

TUESDAY, the 20th day of JANUAARY, 2026

O.S.No.208/2022

01 Jambulapati Anasuya, W/o. Late k. Linganna. Hindu, aged about 52 years, house wife, R/o. H.No.2/18, -----Plaintiff Kuruva geri, Bantanahal village, Chippagiri mandal,

Kurnool District -VERSUS- 01 Kuruva Narayanamma, W/o. Late Kukruva Naganna,

Hindu, aged about 80 years, R/o. Dhonekal village,

Vidapanakallu mandal, Anantapur district 02 K. Lakshmi Devi, W/o. K. Mallaiah, Hindu, aged about 63 years, R/o.Gula Palyam village, Vajrakaruru mandal,, Anantapur district. ------- Defendants 03 G.Mallesh, S/o. G.Thippaiah, husband of late

Yerramma, aged about 60 years, R/o.Belaguppa village and mandal, Anantapur district.

04 M.Devamma, W/o. Devendra, Hindu, aged about 52 years, R/o. Narasapuram village, Guntakal mandal,

Anantapur district.

05 K. Savitramma, W/o. Krishnamurthy, Hindu, aged about 47 years, R/o. Dhonekal village, Vidapanakallu mandal, Anantapur district ******

Plaint presented on 25-11-2022, and L.R.P Nil and numbered on 25.11.2022, J.V. of Rs.14,42,700/- + Rs.27,86,700/- in total Rs.42,29,400/- and 1/6th share of plaintiff comes to Rs.7,04,900/- and 3/4th value comes

Rs.5,28,675/- and a fixed court fee of Rs.2002/- is payable under sec34 of AP

Court fee and suit valuation Act, 1956.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 29.08.2022 when the plaintiff orally demanded the defendants to divide the schedule proprieties into 6 shares and allot 1/6th share of plaintiff’s deceased husband. The properties are located at Bantanahal village, Chippagiri mandal within the jurisdiction of this court. Hence, this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

This suit came before me on 20-01-2026 for hearing in the presence of

Sri.R.V.Yugandhar and Sri. B.Thimmaiah, Advocates for the plaintiff and in the presence of Sri. A.Madhava Krishna, Advocate for Defendants No.1 and

Sri. G.Shakeer Basha, Advocate for defendant No.5, and Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are remained exparte on 27.01.2023, and this Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not press. No costs ;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 20th day of January, 2026.

Civil Judge ( Jr.Div)

Alur

SCHEDULE

The landed properties are situated within the registration district of

Kurnool and Sub-Registration District of Alur, within the village limits of

Bantanahal Gram Panchayat of Chippagiri mandal.

S.No.S.Y.No.Extent 01146Ac.10.83 cents

EastPothappa land WestJaganatha Swamy NorthLinganna land SouthOpen place

S.No.S.Y.No.Extent 01147/1Ac.2.41 cents 02148/1Ac.2.37 cents

EastGolla Bheemalinga

WestJaganatha swamy NorthK.Mangamma and C.Sunkamma lands SouthP.W.D canal

S.No.S.Y.No.Extent 01185/FAc.4.50 cents

EastJayanna, Mukkanna land WestKanthamma, Obulapathi NorthLinganna land SouthB.G.Ramanji land and Mahanandhi, Pullanna lands

S.No.S.Y.No.Extent 01121-DAc.00.03 cents

EastBheemalingamma WestRastha NorthRastha SouthOpen place

S.No.S.Y.No.Extent 01House No.2/31. 450 Sq Yards

EastDhasthageramma WestKuruva Guru NorthRastha SouthRastha

Civil Judge ( Jr.Div)

Alur

Memo of Costs

-Nil- (Not certified)

CJ ( Jr.Div), Alur

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DIV), ALUR

Present: - Ms.K. Hema

Civil Judge ( Jr.Div), Alur

Tuesday, the 24th day of SEPTEMBER,2024

O.S.No.102/2023

01 C.Nagaraju, S/o. C.Anjineyulu …….. Plaintiff

-VERSUS-

01 Nenikappa, S/o. Vadde Nagappa. 02 Beerappa, S/o. Vadde Nagappa. 03 Mallappa, S/o. Vadde Nagappa. 04 Ayallappa, S/o. Vadde Nagappa. 05 Gadilingappa, S/o. Garjappa. 06 Yankappa, S/o. Kariyappa. ……. Defendants 07 Gadilingappa, S/o. Jambanna. 08 Lakshmi, W/o. Eranna. 09 Thimma Reddy, S/o. Lakshmikanth Reddy 10 Ramanna Goud, S/o. Lakshmikantha Reddy. 11 Jayaram, S/o. Lakshmikanth Reddy. 12 Nagappa, S/o Lakshmikanth Reddy ***** This is suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendants, their men, servants, relatives etc., from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, and for costs of the suit.

This suit came before me on 24.09.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri A.Rajesh Kumar, Sri. N. Rajesh and Sri. M.D.Thirumalesh, Advocates for the plaintiff and the D6,D9,D10,D11 and D12 are set exparte on 25.01.2024, and the summons of remaining defendants (D1 to D5 and D7,D8) not yet served due to batta not paid, and this court, delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Cost not paid and batta not paid, plaintiff called absent, No representation, hence suit is dismissed for default.

Written by me in the open court, this the 24 th day of September, 2024.

Sd/-K.Hema

Civil Judge ( Jr.Div),

Alur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

“No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side”

Sd/-K.Hema

C.J (Jr.Div), Alur

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DIV), ALUR

Present: - Ms.K. Hema

Civil Judge ( Jr.Div), Alur

Tuesday, the 24th day of SEPTEMBER,2024

O.S.No.102/2023

01 C.Nagaraju, S/o. C.Anjineyulu, Hindu, aged about 45 …….. Plaintiff

years, Ex-Service Man, Holgunda village and mandal of Alur Taluk, Kurnool District

-VERSUS-

01 Nenikappa, S/o. Vadde Nagappa, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Muddtamagi village, Holugunda mandal, Alur Taluk, Kurnool district. 02 Beerappa, S/o. Vadde Nagappa, Hindu, aged about 53 years, Muddtamagi village, Holugunda mandal, Alur Taluk, Kurnool district. 03 Mallappa, S/o. Vadde Nagappa, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Muddtamagi village, Holugunda mandal, Alur Taluk, Kurnool district. 04 Ayallappa, S/o. Vadde Nagappa, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Muddtamagi village, Holugunda mandal, Alur Taluk, Kurnool district. 05 Gadilingappa, S/o. GarjappaHindu, aged about 50 years, Muddtamagi village, Holugunda mandal, Alur Taluk, Kurnool district. 06 Yankappa, S/o. Kariyappa. Hindu, aged about 52 ……. years, Muddtamagi village, Holugunda mandal, AlurDefendants Taluk, Kurnool district. 07 Gadilingappa, S/o. Jambanna, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Muddtamagi village, Holugunda mandal, Alur Taluk, Kurnool district. 08 Lakshmi, W/o. Eranna, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Muddtamagi village, Holugunda mandal, Alur Taluk, Kurnool district. 09 Thimma Reddy, S/o. Lakshmikanth Reddy, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Muddtamagi village, Holugunda mandal, Alur Taluk, Kurnool district. 10 Ramanna Goud, S/o. Lakshmikantha Reddy, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Muddtamagi village, Holugunda mandal, Alur Taluk, Kurnool district.

11 Jayaram, S/o. Lakshmikanth Reddy, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Muddtamagi village, Holugunda mandal, Alur Taluk, Kurnool district. 12 Nagappa, S/o Lakshmikanth Reddy, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Muddtamagi village, Holugunda mandal, Alur Taluk, Kurnool district. *****

This is suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendants, their men, servants, relatives etc., from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, and for costs of the suit. Plaint presented on 18-05-2023 and L.R.P- Nil and numbered on 18.05.2023, J.V. of Rs.10,000/- and C.F. of Rs.786/- is paid U/sec.26(c) of APCF & SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 01.03.2023 at Muddatamagi village, Holugundha mandal of Kurnool district.

This suit came before me on 24.09.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri A.Rajesh Kumar, Sri. N. Rajesh and Sri. M.D.Thirumalesh, Advocates for the plaintiff and the D6,D9,D10,D11 and D12 are set exparte on 25.01.2024, and the summons of remaining defendants (D1 to D5 and D7,D8) not yet served due to batta not paid, and this Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default. ;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 24thday of September, 2024.

Sd/-K.Hema

Civil Judge ( Jr.Div), Alur

SCHEDULE

SY.No.126a3 and 126-C, situated within the Registration District of Kurnool, within the Sub-Registration district of Alur and in the village of Muddatamagi village, Holugundha mandal with the following particulars. Survey NumberExtent 126a3Ac.4.37 cents 126-CAc.1.23 cents Total : Ac.5.00 cents BOUNDARIES:- EastNenikappa land WestAnithamma land NorthForest Rock South Road

Sd/-K.Hema

Civil Judge ( Jr.Div)

Alur

Memo of Costs -Nil- (Not certified) Sd/-K.Hema

CJ ( Jr.Div), Alur