Sri K.k.v. Buli Krishna

Prl Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurabad, SCJ Court Complex · Karimnagar · Telangana

SRI K.K.V. BULI KRISHNA, Prl Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, is posted at Huzurabad, SCJ Court Complex, Karimnagar, Telangana, India. 192 court orders on record since 2018. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, OP cases.

192

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/40/2011

Kankanala Vasudeva Reddy vs Kankanala Venkat Reddy

31 Dec 2018

1 OS No.40 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUZURABAD

Present:Sri. K.K.V. Buli Krishna, Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

HUZURABAD.

MONDAY, ON THIS THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.40 of 2011

Between:

Kankanala Vasudeva Redy s/o. Venkat Reddy, age 32 years, Occ: Agriculture, r/o. Chinthaguta H/o. Tadikal v/o. Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar District.

…Plaintif

A N D

D1. Kankanala Venkat Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, age 71 years, Occ: Agriculture, D2. Kankanala Ram Mohan Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, age 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, D3. Kankanala Kamalaker Reddy, s/o. Venkat Reddy, Age 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, D4. Kethireddy Srilatha, W/o. Krishna Reddy, Age 28 years, Occ: Household, D5. Kethireddy Padma, W/o. Madhusudhan Reddy, age 29 years, Occ: Household, All are r/o. Chinthagattu H/o. Tadikal V/o. Shankarapatnam of Karimnagar District. … Defendants No.1 to 5

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Bandi Ravinder, Advocate for the plaintif and Defendants No.1 to 3 set ex-parte and Sri. G.Srinivas, Advocate for defendants No.4 and 5 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

The present suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendants

No.1 to 5 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction and also declare the registered sale deed as null and void and not binding on the plaintif.

2.The plaintif submitted that he is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy. No.1-35 guntas in Sy. No.202/A of Chinthagattu hamlet village 2 OS No.40 of 2011 of Tadikal village of Shanakarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar District.

The plaintif further submitted that defendants No.2 and 3 and plaintif are sons of defendant No.1. The plaintif further submitted that original paternal grand father of the plaintif purchased the land admeasuring

Ac.5-21 guntas in the name of the defendant No.1 on 6.10.1965 from one K.Veera Reddy by paying valid consideration and obtained possession. The plaintif further submitted that K.Veera Reddy sufered a consent Decree in favour of defendant No.1 in the year 1975 vide OS

No.128 of 1975. The land admeasuring Ac.5-21 guntas including the suit land is ancestral joint family property and said property in the partition, the defendant No.1 took land admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas in Sy. No.201 only and he made division of land measuring Ac.5-37 guntas in Sy.

No.202/A into three parts by executing settlement deed, dt.25.6.2000.

The plaintif and defendants No.2 and 3 got the land admeasuring Ac.1- 37 guntas each allotted by defendant No.1. The plaintif further submitted that when the defendants No.2 and 3 took possession of their respective shares. Since then the plaintif has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land.

3. The plaintif further submitted that though the properties have been divided but the lands have been in the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue records. Defendant No.2 sold his share of land to one

Krishna Reddy, defendant No.3 sold his share to Madhusudhan Reddy for valid consideration and delivered possession but defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 on the request of defendants No.2 and 3 as his name only stood as pattedar in revenue record while the defendants No.2 and 3 and plaintif attested the same. The plaintif further submitted that the defendants No.2 to 5 3 OS No.40 of 2011 colluded with each other in order to usurp the suit land of plaintif and got created a registered sale deed No.5932/2010 and 5933/2010, dt.15.12.2010 in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 respectively alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 while the defendants No.2 and 3 attested the same. The plaintif further submitted that the plaintif in fact has been in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land. The plaintif further submitted that the transaction under registered sale deed No.5932/2010 and 5933/2010, dt.15.12.2010is fake, dupe, sham and invalid. The plaintif further submitted that no deliver of possession of suit land taken place, no consideration passed under alleged registered sale deeds. The plaintif further submitted that the defendants No.1 to 3 have no right, title or interest over the suit land of plaintif as such through the alleged registered sale deeds no title passes or confers on the defendants No.4 and 5 by virtue of said registered sale deeds. Hence the suit.

4.The defendants No.1 to 3 are set ex-parte. Defendants No.4 and 5 filed written statement. Defendants No.4 and 5 submitted that D1 made believe defendant No.5 that the land in Sy. No.202/A to an extent of

Ac.1-01 guntas situated at Chinthagutta hamlet village of Tadikal village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar District is his self acquired property and sold away the same to defendant No.5 for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,43,500/-. The defendants further submitted that after receiving the same by defendant No.1, had executed a registered sale deed vide Doc. No.5932, dt.15.12.2010 and he had inducted the defendant No.5 into possession of said Ac.1-01 guntas of land in suit survey number which is part of suit land. The defendants further submit that since from the purchase the defendant No.5 is in possession of the land Ac.1-01 guntas with absolute owner and the concerned revenue 4 OS No.40 of 2011 authorities had also mutated the name of defendant No.5 as absolute owner and possessor and accordingly, issued pattedar pass book in his favour. The defendants further submitted that they purchased part of the suit land i.e., Ac.0-30 guntas and Ac.1-01 guntas respectively under registered sale deed for valuable consideration from its owner and possessor i.e., defendant No.1. The defendants further submitted that suit land is purely self acquired property of defendant No.1 and plaintif is no way concern to the suit schedule property and defendants are in possession over their respective lands. The plaintif with malafide intention to extract money from the defendants No.4 and 5 filed this false suit with false averments. Hence the defendants No.4 and 5 prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the averments of plaint and written statement the following issues are framed:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title as prayed for?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration that the registered sale deed vide document No.5932/2010 and 5933/2010, dt.15.12.2010 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff?

4) To what relief?

6.To prove its case the plaintif examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.4 examined herself as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B8. Defendant No.5 got examined herself as DW2 and got marked Ex.B9 to B19. The defendants also got examined one Adepu Mondaiah and B.Devender

Reddy as Dws.3 and 4 on their behalf.

5 OS No.40 of 2011

7.The plaintif examined as PW1 and reiterated the averments of the chief affidavit. PW1 got marked Ex.A1 to A7. PW1 deposed that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The contention of the PW1 is that he himself and defendants No.1 and 3 are sons of defendant No.1. Originally, paternal grand father of them purchased the land admeasuring Ac.5-21 guntas in the name of D1 on 16.10.1965 from K.Veera Reddy by paying valid consideration and obtained possession and later the vendor K.Veera Reddy sufered a consent decree in favour of defendant No.1 in the year 1975 vide OS

No.128 of 1975 the land admeasuring Ac.5-21 guntas including suit land is ancestral joint family property and the said property in the partition, the defendant No.1 took land admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas in Sy. No.201 and he made division of land measuring Ac.5-37 guntas in Sy. No.202/A into three parts by executing settlement deed on 25.6.2000 and thus he himself, defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 got the land admeasuring

Ac.1-37 guntas in suit survey number each allotted by defendant No.1.

PW1 further deposed that he himself and defendants No.2 and 3 took possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land. PW1 further deposed that the properties have been divided but the lands have been stood in the name of D1 in the revenue records and the defendant No.2 sold his share of land to one K.Krishna Reddy, defendant No.3 sold his share of land to Madhusudhan Reddy for valid consideration and delivered possession but defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 on the request of defendants No.2 and 3 as his name is only stood as pattedar in revenue records while the defendant No.2, 3 and himself attested the same. PW1 further deposed that defendants No.2 to 5 colluded with each other and crated registered sale deeds. In the cross examination PW1 deposed that he studied upto 6 OS No.40 of 2011 7th class and he do not know the contents of chief affidavit. PW1 further deposed that he filed suit against Srilatha and Padma. DW1 further deposed that he filed the suit for his share in the land and in the Sy.

No.202/A to an extent of Ac.1-34 guntas. PW1 further deposed that he do not know about the other survey numbers which are owned by his father.

8.DW1 deposed that defendant No.1 made believe that the land in

Sy. No.202/A to an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas situated in Chinthagutta hamlet village of Tadikal village of Shankarapatnam mandal of

Karimnagar District as is self acquired property and sold away the same to him for a valid consideration of Rs.1,05,000/- and after receiving the entire sale consideration by the defendant No.1 had executed a registered sale deed vide Doc. No.5932/2010, dt.15.12.2010 in favour of him and he had inducted her into the possession of the said land. DW1 further deposed that since the date of purchase he has been continuous possession of the said land as absolute owner. DW1 also deposed that defendant No.1 also made believe the defendant No.5 that the land in

Sy. No.202/A to an extent of Ac.1-01 gunta situated in Chinthagutta hamlet village of Tadikal village of Shankarapatnam mandal of

Karimnagar District is his self acquired property and sold away the same to D5 for valid consideration of R.1,43,500/- after receiving the same by the D1 had executed a registered sale deed and D5 inducted in the possession of the said land. DW1 further deposed that since th date of purchase has been in continuous possession of the said land Ac.1-01 guntas as absolute owner. DW1 further deposed he himself and DW5 bonafide purchasers and they purchased part of the suit land i.e., Ac.0- 30 guntas and Ac.1-01 guntas respectively. DW1 got marked Ex.B1 to 7 OS No.40 of 2011

B8. DW2, who is defendant No.5, in the suit deposed on the same lines as deposed by DW1. DW2 got marked Ex.B9 to B19.

9.DW3 A.Mondaiah examined on behalf of the defendants. DW3 deposed that plaintif is not the absolute owner of suit schedule property.

DW3 further deposed that the defendant No.1 sold away the land in Sy.

No.202/A to an extent of Ac.0-30 gutas situated at Chinthagutta hamlet village of Tadikal village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar

District for a valid consideration of Rs.1,05,000/- to D4 and further he had sold away to an extent of Ac.1-01 guntas in suit survey number to defendant No.5 for valid consideration of Rs.1,43,500/- to D5 and after receiving the entire sale consideration by the defendant No.1 had executed a registered sale deed and he had inducted the defendants

No.4 and 5 into the possession and the respective lands and the lands are part and parcel of the suit land. DW3 further deposed that since from the purchase D4 and D5 are in exclusive possession over their respective lands. DW3 further deposed that D4 and D5 are bonafide purchasers and they purchased part of the suit land i.e., Ac.0-30 guntas and Ac.1-01 guntas respectively under registered sale deed for a valid consideration from its owners and possessors. DW3 further deposed that the land is purely self acquired property of the D1. One B.Devender

Reddy is examined as DW4 and deposed on the same lines as deposed by DW3.

10.The learned counsel for the plaintif contended that the suit schedule property is belongs to the plaintif and the defendant No.1 sold away the suit property to D4 and D5 without knowledge and consent of the plaintif. The learned counsel for the plaintif further contended that the suit schedule property falls under the share of the plaintif during the 8 OS No.40 of 2011 partition. The learned counsel for the plaintif prayed this court to declare the plaintif as owner and possessor of the suit schedule property by cancelling the registered sale deed which was executed by defendants in favour of defendants No.4 and 5. The learned counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintif is not the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The learned counsel for the defendant further submitted that defendants No.4 and 5 are bonafide purchasers and the defendant No.1 was owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The learned counsel for the defendant further contended that the names of the defendant No.1 and defendant No.5 mutated in the revenue records and having been enjoying the property and having possession over the suit schedule property as absolute owners. The learned counsel for the defendants No.4 and 5 prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

11.The case of the plaintif is that the he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.1-37 guntas in Sy. No.202/A situated at Chinthagutta hamlet village of Tadikal village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar District. The plaintif further submitted that himself, defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 are sons of defendant No.1.

The case of the plaintif is that originally their paternal grand father purchased the land admeasuring Ac.5-21 guntas in the name of defendant No.1 on 6.10.1965 from K.Veera Reddy by paying valid consideration and obtained possession. The plaintif further contended that the vendor of K.Veera Reddy sufered consent decree in favour of the defendant No.1 in the year 1975 vide OS No.128/1975 and the land admeasuring Ac.5-21 guntas including suit land is ancestral joint family property. The plaintif further contended that in the partition, the defendant No.1 took land admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas in Sy. No.201 only 9 OS No.40 of 2011 and made division of land admeasuring Ac.5-37 guntas in Sy. NO.202/A into three parts by executing settlement deed on 25.6.2000 and he himself and defendants No.2 and 3 got the land admeasuring Ac.1-37 guntas in suit survey number each. The plaintif further contended that he himself and defendants No.2 and 3 took possession of their respective shares and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands. The plaintif further contended that though the properties have divided but the lands have been stood in the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue records. The plaintif further contended that defendants No.2 and 3 sold his land to other persons and defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed in favour of the purchasers. The plaintif further submitted that the defendants No.2 to 5 colluded with each other in order to usurp the suit land and got created registered sale deed No.5932/2010 and 5933/2010, dt.15.12.2010 in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 respectively allegedly executed by D1 while the D2 and D3 attested the same. The plaintif contended that the suit schedule properties falls in his share and he is having possession over the said land. The plaintif prayed this court to declare the plaintif as owner and possessor of the suit schedule land with consequential injunction. The plaintif further prayed this court to declare the registered sale deeds No.5932/2010 and 5933/2010, dt.15.12.2010 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Huzurabad are null and void and not binding on the plaintif.

12.Issue No.1 and 2: The plaintif contended that he is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The case of the plaintif is that the plain schedule property is ancestral property and during the partition the property falls under his share. The plaintif contended that his grand father purchased the land in an extent of Ac.5- 10 OS No.40 of 2011 21 guntas in the name of defendant No.1 on 6.10.2015 from K.Veera

Reddy and later the defendant No.1 obtained decree vide OS

No.128/1975. The plaintif further contended that they got partitioned the property on 25.6.2000 and they got Ac.1-37 guntas land each. The plaintif prayed this court to declare him as absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

13.To prove the case of the plaintif, the plaintif got marked Ex.A1 to

A7. Ex.A1 pahani for the year 2005-2006. Ex.A2 is the pahani for the year 2006-2007. Ex.A3 is the pahani for the year 2007-2008. On perusal of Ex.A1 to A3 it is clear that the name of defendant No.1 shown as pattedar and possessor in respect of land in Sy. No.202/A to an extent of Ac.5-21 guntas. In the said documents the nature of possession is shown as patta. Ex.A4 and A5 are the pattedar pass book and title deed which discloses that the defendant No.1 name is shown as pattedar in respect of land in Sy. No.202/A to an extent of Ac.5-21 guntas. Ex.A6 is

CC of Sale Deed which discloses that the defendant no.1 executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.5. Ex.A6 the defendant No.1 sold away an extent of Ac.1-01 guntas in favour of the defendant No.5.

Ex.A7 is Sale Deed executed in favour of D4 by the defendant No.1 by alienating an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas in Sy. No.202/A. On perusal of

Ex.A1 and A3 it is clear that the name of defendant No.1 shown as pattedar and possessor in respect of land in Sy. No.202/A to an extent of

Ac.5-21 guntas. The plaintif failed to produce any documents to show that the property in Sy. No.202/A in an extent of Ac.5-21 guntas is ancestral property. The plaintif failed to produce any document before this court to show that the suit schedule property falls under his share.

The plaintif has filed settlement deed, dt.25.6.2000, but the plaintif 11 OS No.40 of 2011 failed to pay the requisite stamp duty and penalty and the plaintif could not mark the same before this court. The documents marked by plaintif shows that the defendant No.1 name is shown as pattedar and possessor in respect of land in Sy. No.202/A in an extent of Ac.5-37 guntas including present suit schedule property. The defendants got marked Ex.B1 to B19. Ex.B1 is original sale deed, dt.15.12.2010 which is executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5. Ex.B2 is mutation proceedings, dt.7.1.2011. Ex.B3 is 1-B Namoona. Ex.B4 is pahani for the year 2010-2011. On perusal of Ex.B1 to B4 it is clear that the defendant No.1 sold away the land in Sy. No.202/A to an extent of

Ac.0-30 guntas in favour of the defendant and the name of the defendant No.4 also mutated in the revenue records and her name is shown as pattedar and possessor in respect of land in Sy. No.202/A in an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas. Ex.B5 is sale deed executed by the defendant

No.1 in favour of defendant No.5. Ex.B6 is mutation proceedings. Ex.B7 is 1-B Namoona. Ex.B8 is pahani for the year 2008-2009. Ex.B13 is pahani for the year 1421 Fasli. Ex.B14 is pahani for the year 1422 Fasli.

Ex.B15 is pahani for the year 1423 Fasli. Ex.B16 is pahani for the year 1424 Fasli. Ex.B17 is pahani for the year 1425 Fasli. Ex.B18 is pahani for the year 1428 Falsi. Ex.B19 is pahani for the year 1427 Fasli. On perusal of Ex.B5 to B8 and B13 to B19 it is clear that the name of the defendant No.5 mutated in the revenue records to an extent of Ac.1-01 guntas in Sy. No.202/A and pahanies also discloses the possession of the defendant No.5. Ex.B9 is the CC of sale deed executed in favour of

K.Krishna Reddy by defendant No.1 to an extent of Ac.0-10 guntas in Sy.

No.202/A. Ex.B10 is the Sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of K.Madhusudhan Reddy by K.Venkat Reddy for and extent of Ac.0-10 guntas in Sy. No.202/A. Ex.B11 is the CC of sale deed wherein the 12 OS No.40 of 2011 defendant No.5 sold away the land in an extent of Ac.1-25 guntas in Sy.

No.202/A in favour of defendant No.5. Ex.B12 is CC of sale deed executed by K.Venkat Reddy in favour of defendant No.4 for an extent of

Ac.1-25 guntas in Sy. No.202/A. On perusal of Ex.B9 to B12 it is clear that the defendant No.1 sold land in Sy. No.202/A to others including defendants No.4 and 5 apart from suit schedule property. On perusal of the documents filed by the defendants it is clear that the defendant No.1 was the pattedar and possessor in respect of the land in Sy. No.202/A in an extent of Ac.5-37 guntas including the suit schedule property and he sold the land to the purchasers including the defendants No.4 and 5.

14.On perusal of entire evidence on record it is clear that the plaintif failed to produce any document to show that the suit schedule property is ancestral property and the suit schedule property falls under his share.

In these circumstances I am of the view that the plaintif failed to prove his title over the suit schedule property and plaintif also failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintif is not entitled for declaration of title and perpetual injunction as prayed in the suit. I answered the issues Nos.1 and 2 accordingly in favour of the defendants No.4 and 5 and against the plaintif.

15.Issue No.3:

In view of the discussion in issues No.1 and 2, I am of the considered view that the plaintif failed to prove his title and possession over the suit schedule property and therefore he is not entitled for relief of declaration to declare the registered sale deeds vide Doc.

No.5932/2010 and 5933/2010, dt.15.12.2010 as null and void and not binding on the plaintif. I answered the issue No.3 accordingly in favour 13 OS No.40 of 2011 of the defendants No.4 and 5 and against the plaintif.

16.Issue No.4:

In the result, the suit is dismissed. Without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of December, 2018.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF(S): FOR THE DEFENDANT(S): PW1 – K.Vasudeva ReddyDW1 – K.Srilatha DW2 – K.Padma DW3 – Mondaiah DW4 – B.Devender Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF(S): Ex.A1Pahani for the year 2005-2006 Ex.A2 Pahani for the year 2006-2007 Ex.A3Pahani for the year 2007-2008 Ex.A4Pattadar Pass Book Ex.A5Title Deed Ex.A6Certified Copy of Sale Deed Ex.A7Certified Copy of Sale Deed

FOR THE DEFENDANT(S): Ex.B1Sale Deed Ex.B2Mutation Orders Ex.B31-B Certificate Ex.B4Pahani for the year 2010-2011 Ex.B5Sale Deed Ex.B6Mutation Orders Ex.B71- B Certificate Ex.B8Pahani for the year 2008-2009 Ex.B9Sale deed obtained through meeseva, dt.4.7.2007 14 OS No.40 of 2011

Ex.B10Sale deed obtained through meeseva, dt.4.7.2007 Ex.B11Certified Copy of Sale Deed, dt.2.6.2008 Ex.B12Certified Copy of Sale Deed, dt.2.6.2008 Ex.B13Pahani obtained through Mee seva for the fasli 1421 Ex.B14Pahani obtained through Mee seva for the fasli 1422 Ex.B15Pahani obtained through Mee seva for the fasli 1423 Ex.B16Pahani obtained through Mee seva for the fasli 1424 Ex.B17Pahani obtained through Mee seva for the fasli 1425 Ex.B18Pahani obtained through Mee seva for the fasli 1426 Ex.B19Pahani obtained through Mee seva for the fasli 1427

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

OS/165/2016

Goli Kumara Swamy vs Chanda Venu

31 Dec 2018

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUZURABAD

Present:Sri. K.K.V. Buli Krishna, Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

HUZURABAD.

Monday, the 31st day of December, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.165 of 2016

Between:

Goli Kumara Swamy, S/o Rajamouli, age 61 years, r/o. Rampoor village of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnagar District.

…Plaintif A N D

Chanda Venu S/o Upender R/o #20-568/A, Gandhinagar Road of Huzurabad town and mandal of Karimangar District, working at G.V.R Mega Show Room Cloth Store, Main Road, Huzurabad. … Defendant

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Sheshaiah and Sri. Y.Arun, Advocates for the plaintif and Sri. B.Ravinder, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

The present suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of amount of Rs.1,45,973/-.

2.The averments of the plaint are that the plaintif and defendant are the original residents of Rampoor village of Huzurabad mandal. The plaintif further submitted that on 15.8.2013 the defendant requested the plaintif to advance a hand loan of Rs.85,000/- to meet his family and business necessities. The plaintif further submitted that he advanced an amount of Rs.85,000/- to the defendant on 16.8.2013 and after receipt of the said amount the defendant executed a promissory note and receipt in favour of the plaintif on the same day in the presence of the witnesses and also promising to repay the said loan amount along 2 with interest @2% per month per hundred as and when demanded by the plaintif. The plaintif further submitted that the he demanded the defendant to pay above said loan amount of Rs.85,000/- along with interest to on several occasions but the defendant postponed the payment for one or the other reason. On repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendant issued a cheque on 17.8.2015 bearing

No.164742 of ING Vysya Bank Ltd., of Huzurabad Branch towards party payment of the above said amount. But the said cheque was bounced on which plaintif filed complaint before the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Huzurabad vide CC No.18 of 2016 under Sec.138 and 142 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act and the said case is pending. The plaintif further submitted that he got issued registered legal notice on 26.7.2016 to defendant through his counsel demanding for payment of above said loan amount along with interest within seven days from the date of receipt of legal notice and the notice is duly served on defendant but the defendant has not paid the loan amount and hence the suit. The plaintif prayed this court to direct the defendant to pay loan amount of

Rs.1,45,973/- along with interest.

3.The defendant after receipt of summons appeared before this court and filed written statement. The defendant denied the averments of the plaint. The defendant further submitted that he never borrowed any amount much less Rs.85,000/- from the plaintif. When there is no debt, then question of execution of promissory note by him does not arise. The defendant further submitted that the plaintif never demanded for repayment of the loan amount. The defendant further submitted that he never issued any cheque to the plaintif vide cheque bearing

No.164742, dt.17.8.2015. The defendant further submitted that cheque was bounced and that a case vide CC No.18 of 2016 against the 3 defendant on a false complaint filed by the plaintif herein. The defendant further submitted that he borrowed loan from some persons since he sustained loss in his business and he is unable to pay loan amount of Rs.92,000/- as such he filed IP No.13 of 2010 against them on the file of the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Huzurabad. The defendant further submitted that the respondent No.3 in the said IP is the close relative of plaintif. The defendant further submitted that he filed the IP No.13 of 2010 against the respondent No.3, who colluded with the plaintif and got filed present suit and also cheque bounce case.

Basing on that plaintif filed cheque and unfilled promissory note which was handed over to R3 at the time of loan of Rs.10,000/-. The defendant further submitted that there was no money transaction between the plaintif and the defendant. The defendant further submitted that since the IP is pending the instant suit is not maintainable.

4.The plaintif himself examined as PW1 and one Aakoju Veerachary who is the attestor of the promissory note is examined as PW2. The defendant himself examined as DW1. The plaintif got marked Ex.A1 to

A3.

5.Now the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit

amount from the defendant as prayed for?

2. Whether promissory note dated 16.8.2013 is valid and binding on the defendant?

3. To what relief?

ISSUE Nos.1 and 2:-

6.The plaintif contended that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.85,000/- on 16.8.2013 and also executed Ex.A1 Promissory Note cum receipt. The defendant denied the same, the defendant submitted that 4 he never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintif. The defendant further contended that he obtained loan amount of

Rs.10,000/- from one person who is relative of the plaintif. The defendant contended that he has filed IP No.13 of 2010 against the debtors. The defendant further contended that the relative of the plaintif is respondent No.3 in the above said petition. The defendant denied the financial transaction as claimed by the plaintif.

7.The plaintif got examined Pws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A1 to

A3. The defendant himself examined as DW1 no document marked on behalf of the defendant. The plaintif reiterated the averments in the plaint in his chief affidavit. In the cross examination PW1 deposed that at the time of lending money the defendant working as Gumasta and also doing cloth business. PW1 further deposed that on 16.3.2013 he lent an amount of Rs.85,000/- to defendant and one Ravula Rajanna scribed Ex.A1 and the said Rajanna is alive and one Veerachary is present at that time. PW1 further deposed that after lending amount to the defendant he executed Ex.A1 Promissory note. PW1 further deposed that he do not know whether defendant filed IP before the court.

8.PW2 who is scribe of the promissory note examined as PW2. PW2 deposed that he is doing business of Gold jewellery since last more than 15 years and his sister is given in marriage to Rampoor and he used to visit Rampoor. The plaintif and defendant are residents of Rampoor village and having their houses near by his sister house as such he has acquaintance with the plaintif and defendant. PW2 further deposed that at about 5 years back himself and one R.Rajanna went to the house of his sister at that time the defenant came to her house and informed to them that he is availing loan from plaintif and requested R.Rajanna to 5 accompany with him to the house of plaintif. PW2 further deposed that he himself and R.Rajanna went to the house of the plaintif and plaintif advanced a hand loan of Rs.85,000/- and defendant after receipt of said loan amount of Rs.85,000/- from the plaintif requested himself and

R.Rajanna to scribe the promissory note in favour of the plaintif for the loan amount and as per the instructions of the defendant R.Rajanna executed promissory note and receipt and defendant signed on the pro- note and receipt thereafter R.Rajanna and himself signed on the pro- note as scribe and attestor. PW2 further deposed that the plaintif advanced loan amount of Rs.85,000/- to the defendant and defendant executed pro-note. In the cross examination PW2 deposed that he is running jewellery shop and he is selling ready made jewellery. PW2 further deposed that he is not having other business except jewellery shop. PW2 further deposed he is not having any financial business.

PW2 further deposed that he has filed a case for recovery of money on the file of the Huzurabad Court and he has filed cheque bounce case and he is having license for money lending. During the course of cross examination the learned counsel for the defendant put a suggestion to the PW1 by denying the financial transaction between the parties. The plaintif got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is Promissory Note. Ex.A2 is the

Legal Notice issued by counsel for plaintif. Ex.A3 is acknowledgment.

The defendant contended that he gave the empty promissory note and cheque to one Venkataramana who is relative of the plaintif. The defendant contended that he filed IP against the respondent including the relative of the plaintif. The defence set up by the defendant is that the respondent No.3 who is relative of the plaintif colluded with the plaintif and got filed the present suit through the plaintif by taking advantage of the possession of the blank promissory note and cheque.

9.The defendant himself examined as PW1. The defendant reiterated the averments in the chief affidavit and denied the transaction. In the cross examination PW1 deposed that he know the plaintif from childhood. The defendant further deposed that he has no enmity or dispute with the plaintif and he filed IP No.13/2010 against the respondent. DW1 further deposed that the plaintif herein also filed cheque bounce case against him vide CC No.18 of 2016 for an amount of

Rs.85,000/-. DW1 further deposed that he gave cheque and promissory note to one Venkataramana and at the time of borrowing an amount of

Rs.10,000/- from said Venkataramana. DW1 further deposed that he do not know the result of insolvency petition filed by him. DW1 further deposed that he is having enmity with PW2.

10.The learned counsel for plaintif contended that the defendant obtained loan amount of Rs.85,000/- from the plaintif and executed promissory note. The learned counsel for the plaintif further contended that the defendant failed to pay the loan amount despite of demand made by the plaintif. The learned counsel for the plaintif further contended that the plaintif is entitled for recovery of amount as prayed by plaintif.

11.The learned counsel for the defendant further contended that the defendant never borrowed amount from the plaintif. The learned counsel for the plaintif further contended that defendant never executed any promissory note or cheque in favour of the plaintif. The learned counsel for the defendant further contended that the defendant has filed IP No.13/2010 on the file of the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge,

Huzurabad and the same is pending and in view of the said IP the present suit is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the defendant 7 further contended that one Venkataramana who is relative of the plaintif got filed the present suit against the defendant by using the cheque and promissory note. The learned counsel for the defendant prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

12.The contention of the plaintif is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.85,000/- on 16.8.2013 and executed promissory note. The defendant not denied the signature on the promissory note. The defendant admitted that he has filed IP against the respondents as he was unable to pay the debts and he handed over promissory note and cheque to the respondent No.3 in IP No.13 of 2010 but defendant denied the financial transactions with the plaintif. On perusal of record that plaintif got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the Promissory Note which was executed for an amount of Rs.85,000/-. PW1 got marked the said promissory note during his chief examination and also marked Ex.A2 which is legal notice, dt.26.7.2016. Ex.A3 is the acknowledgment. The plaintif. The defendant not deny the signature on the promissory note and receipt of legal notice i.e., Ex.A2. The plaintif got examined PW2 who is attester of promissory note and P.W.2 supported the version of

PW1. The plaintif discharged his burden by examining PW1 and by marking Ex.A1 Promissory Note. The Signature on Ex.A1 is not denied by the evidence of plaintif therefore the presumption can be drawn that the defendant borrowed amount under Ex.A1.

13. Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deals with presumptions as to negotiable instrument. One of such presumption appearing in section 118(a) with which we would be concerned in this suit runs like this; “that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been 8 accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.”

14.The presumption available under section 118(a) of N.I. Act is a rebuttal one and after drawing the presumption under section 118(a) of

N.I. Act in favour of the plaintif the burden shifts to the defendant to prove non-existence of consideration. It is settled position of law that the burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would lead the court to believe the non-existence of the consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal.

15. In this connection reference may be made to a landmark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Bharat Barrel and Drum

Manufacturing Company Vs Amin Chand Payrelal' reported in '1993(3)

SCC 35'. In paragraph 12 of the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme

Court pleased to summarize the law relating to shifting of burden under section 118(a) of N.I. 11 of 14 Act and what happens if defendant discharges the burden shifted upon him, and the Hon'ble Court observed and held that “Upon consideration of various judgments as noted herein-above, the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the promissory note is admitted or proved, the presumption under section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or 9 doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintif who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable installment. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non-existence of the consideration can be either direct or by brining on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event, the defendant is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintif as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintif would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under section 118(a) of N.I. Act in his favour. The Court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is 12 of 14 neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt. The bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence.

Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the plaintif. To disprove the presumption, the defendant has to bring on record such facts and circumstances upon consideration of which the Court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, shall act upon the plea that it does not exist.”

16.Now it is to be seen whether the defendant rebutted evidence of the plaintif. The defendant examined as DW1 and got marked exhibits on behalf of the defendant. The contention of the defendant is that he 10 has filed I.P.No.13/2010. It is not the case of the defendant that the plaintif is party to the insolvency proceedings. The defendant/DW1 deposed that he do not know the result of the said I.P. Admittedly the plaintif is not the party to the insolvency proceedings and therefore the same is not binding on the plaintif. The defendant failed to rebut the evidence adduced by the plaintif. In the circumstances I am of the view that the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. As such the document dt.16.8.2013 is binding on the defendant. Hence I answered the issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

17Issue No.3:

In the result, the suit of the plaintif is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.1,45,973/- along with interest @12% per annum on

principal amount of Rs.85,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the

date of decree thereafter @6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of December, 2018.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

PW1 – Goli Kumara Swamy DW1 – Chanda Venu PW2 – Akoju Veera Chary

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1 Promissory Note, dt.16.8.2013 Ex.A2 Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.26.7.2016 Ex.A3 Acknowledgment

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: -Nil- Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

OS/4/2016

Veshala Mahender vs Bigigiri Sampath

12 Dec 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT

HUZURABAD.

PRESENT: SRI K.K.V.BULI KRISHNA

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

Wednesday, the 12th day of December, 2018.

O.S.No. 4 of 2016.

Between:

Veshala Mahender, S/o Laxmaiah, Age: 29 years, Occ: Business, R/o Ramannapally village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar District. …Plaintiff. AND

Bigigiri Sampath, S/o Rayamallu, Age: 35 years, Occ: Hamali, R/o H.No.229, ( House of Kokkula Vijigiri ), Kothapally village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar District. …Defendant.

CLAIM: Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,34,250/ from the defendant.

* * *

This suit is coming for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri P.Sridhar Babu, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Sri P.Linga Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and having been heard and having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following: : : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The present suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs. 1,34,250/ along with interest.

The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff and 2.

defendant are known to each other by having friendly terms between them out of said friendship the defendant has approached the plaintiff and requested a hand loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/ to meet his family and legal necessities and out of the said relationship with the 2 defendant the plaintiff has advanced an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ on 04.02.2014 and the defendant having received the said amount from the plaintiff, executed a registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff vide document No.325/2014 of SRO Huzurabad under which the defendant mortgaged his house plot in Sy.No.434/D bearing Plot

No.38 to an extent of 91.52 square yards, situated at Ramannapally village. The plaintiff further submits that on 03.2.2015 when the plaintiff demanded for repayment of the said amount the defendant postponed the same for the reason best known to him. The plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant through his counsel on 27.10.2015 and the defendant who received the same came to the plaintiff's house and requested two more months for repayment. The plaintiff further submits that the defendant failed to repay the suit amount. The plaintiff prayed this

Court to decree the suit.

3.This Court issued summons to the defendant. The defendant received summons from this Court and filed written statement. The defendant denied the averments in the plaint are false. The defendant further submits that the cause of action shown by the plaintiff is false and cooked for filing of the suit. The defendant further submits that the plaintiff suppressing the real facts. The defendant further submits that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.Basing on the plaint and written statement, this Court framed the following issues for trail.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of amount from the defendant as prayed in the plaint ?

2. Whether the register mortgage deed, dated 26.10.2015 is valid and binding on the defendant ?

3. To what relief ?

5.ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2

The plaintiff contended that he borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/ to the defendant and the defendant executed a register mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff vide document No.325/2014 of SRO, Huzurabad under which the defendant mortgaged his house plot in Sy.No.434/D bearing plot No.38 to an extent of 91.52 square yards, situated at Ramannapall H/o Dharmaram by promising that the defendant would repay the hand loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/ on 03.02.2015 along with monthly interest @ Rs.150 paise per hundred.

The plaintiff further submits that the defendant failed to repay the said amount, despite of several requests made by the him. The plaintiff further submits that he got issued legal notice to the defendant through his counsel on 27.10.2015 and the received the said notice and failed to repay the said amount. The defendant denied the averments in the plaint.

6.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. The learned counsel for the defendant did not turn up to cross examine P.W.1 and hence the cross 4 examination of P.W.1 treated nil. Ex.A.1 is the mortgage deed vide document No.225/2014. Ex.A.2 is the copy of legal notice, dated 27.10.2016. Ex.A.3 is the postal receipt. Ex.A.4 is the acknowledgment card. The unchallanged testimony of P.W.1 proves the case of the plaintiff. Ex.A.1 which is mortgage deed discloses that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ from the plaintiff. Exs.A.2 to A.4 supported the case of the plaintiff. From the evidence of plaintiff, I am of the view that the mortgage deed is binding on the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed in the plaint. I answered issue Nos.1 and 2 accordingly in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

7. ISSUE NO.3

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.1,34,250/ together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree on principle amount of Rs.1,00,000/ and thereafter @ 6 % per annum from the date of decree till realization.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the Open Court, on this the 12th day of December, 2018.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

PW1. Veshala Mahender.

FOR THE DEFENDANT: None 5

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 Mortgage deed vide document No.225/2014. Ex.A2 Copy of legal notice, dated 27.10.2016. Ex.A3 Postal receipt. Ex.A4 Acknowledgment card.

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Nil Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

OS/160/2018

Bathula Parushuramulu vs Pulla Nagaiah

24 Dec 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT HUZURABAD.

PRESENT: SRI K.K.V.BULI KRISHNA

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

Monday, the 24th day of December, 2018.

O.S.No. 160 of 2018.

Between:

Bathula Parusharamulu, S/o Lingaiah, Age: 32 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o 277/1, Gollagudem village and post of Saidapur mandal of Karimnagar District.

…Plaintiff. AND

Pulla Nagaiah, S/o Late Mallaiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: T.S Transco Employee, R/o Ramulapally H/o Madada village and post Husnabad mandal of Karimnagar District, presently in Siddipeta District.

…Defendant.

This suit is coming for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri G.Laxmana Murthty, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and defendant is set ex- parte and having been heard and having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:- : : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of promissory note against the defendant for recovery of amount of Rs.1,63,700/- with future interest @ 24 % per annum.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are that the plaintiff and defendant are friends through Gurram Pramod as such well to each other and you both are having good relation/acquaintance last decade, that basing on the acquaintance defendant had approached the plaintiff for hand loan of

Rs.1,13,000/- for his family legal necessity and on the request made by the 2 defendant and on 17.2.2017 the plaintiff had advanced an amount of

Rs.1,63,700/- with assurance that as and when the plaintiff demand to defendant to repay the above said debt amount and that the defendant had executed the promissory note on the same day on 17.02.2017 in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses. The plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff had demanded to pay pronote amount to the defendant in several occasions but the defendant postponed the same one day or other day and giving false assurance to the plaintiff and on 10.08.2017 and 07.09.2017 the plaintiff had demanded for pronote amount for which the defendant promised that the pronote amount will be paid within 15 days.

The plaintiff further submits that he got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 10.5.2018 and the same was served on the defendant and the defendant receiving the legal notice and the defendant did not pay the pronote amount. Hence the suit.

3. The defendant is set exparte.

4.During the course of exparte evidence, the plaintiff got himself examined as Pw1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A.4.

5.Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,63,000/- from the defendant as prayed for ?

Point:

7.The plaintiff filed chief evidence affidavit in lieu of chief examination to prove the plaint pleadings. The plaintiff has filed Ex.A1 promissory note, 3 which shows that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,63,000/- from the plaintiff on 17.02.2017.

8.As could be seen from the evidence of Pw1, the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,63,000/- from the plaintiff on 17.02.2017 towards hand loan and the defendant executed promissory note Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the said amount as and when demanded by the plaintiff, but the defendant failed to repay the said loan amount inspite of repeated requests of the plaintiff. The documents filed by the plaintiff amply prove the suit claim. As the defendant remained exparte, the claim of the plaintiff remained unchallenged. Hence, the suit claim is proved. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs. 1,63,000/- together with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree on principle amount of

Rs.1,63,000/- and thereafter @ 6 % per annum from the date of decree till realization.

Typed to dictation by stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of December, 2018.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

PW1 Bathula Parusharamulu None 4

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1 Promissory Note, dated 17.02.2017. Ex.A.2 Office copy of legal notice, dated 10.5.2018. Ex.A.3 Postal receipt. Ex.A.4 Acknowledgment.

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Nil

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

EP/65/2016

Kapil Chit Fund PVT.LTD., Rep by M.Shiva Prasad vs Mukka Ramesh

17 Dec 2018

Order Record 191 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/40/2011	Kankanala Vasudeva Reddy vs Kankanala Venkat Reddy	31 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
OS/165/2016	Goli Kumara Swamy vs Chanda Venu	31 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
OS/160/2018	Bathula Parushuramulu vs Pulla Nagaiah	24 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
EP/65/2016	Kapil Chit Fund PVT.LTD., Rep by M.Shiva Prasad vs Mukka Ramesh	17 Dec 2018	Order	—
OS/4/2016	Veshala Mahender vs Bigigiri Sampath	12 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
OS/206/2017	Masadi Linga Reddy vs Narra Hamsa Reddy	11 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
OS/170/2016	Saganti Mallaiah vs Balenki @ Nelli Ashalu	10 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
EP/29/2017	KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT LTD ,HUZURABAD BRANCH M.SHIVA PRASAD vs Madgula Veeraiah	05 Dec 2018	Order	—
OS/55/2018	Amaragonda Srishanth, minor R/by her mother Amaragonda Rajitha vs Mekala Yellaiah	05 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
OS/72/2018	Teegala Nandaiah vs Teegala Laxmaiah	05 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
OS/258/2017	Rayabaram Chndraiah vs Gajula Sampath	04 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
EP/29/2018	Gaddam Shankaranarayana vs Mutyam Satyanarayana	03 Dec 2018	Order	—
OS/7/2013	Kasireddy Anji Reddy vs Kasireddy Chinna Raji Reddy	03 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
OS/216/2017	Gajula Anjaneyulu vs Rachakonda Shankar	01 Dec 2018	Order	—
OS/201/2008	Akkati Shankaraiah vs Chiticashi Prabhakar	28 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
OS/95/2018	Bongoni Ramaiah vs Nagamalla Nageshwar	27 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
OS/98/2008	Enugu Raghava Reddy vs Perumandla Venkata Lakshmamma	27 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
OS/128/2009	Pittala Shankaraiah vs Katkuri Laxmibai	26 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
EP/4/2017	Vasala Rajaiah vs Gavva Malla Reddy	20 Nov 2018	Order	—
OS/83/2016	Pachimatla Babu vs Koutam Laxmi	20 Nov 2018	Order	—
OS/115/2018	Basipelli Veeraiah vs Basipelly Rajeshwer Rao	20 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
OS/103/2009	Thangallapalli Jampaiah vs Vilasagarapu @ Theegala Kumaraswamy	19 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
OS/154/2014	voruganti raji reddy vs Vsvoruganti veera reddy	14 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
OS/126/2013	Prathap Ravinder vs Chintahanippula Uma Devi	13 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
OS/152/2018	Bairi Rakesh Kumar vs Vsmanda Srinivas	13 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
OS/167/2013	Myaka Yellaiah vs Ejjigiri Narsaiah	13 Nov 2018	Order	—
OS/151/2018	Bairi Rakesh Kumar vs Nukaveeral Badraiah	12 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
OS/153/2018	Bairi Rakesh Kumar vs Manda Kumara Swamy	12 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
OS/17/2016	Mergu Linga Reddy vs Munjala Laxmaiah	31 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
OS/147/2018	Bakarapu Mallaliah vs Nerella Ramakrishna	31 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
OS/198/2012	Polasani Sampath rao vs Madarapu Keshava Rao	30 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
EP/14/2018	Kapil Chit Fund PVT Ltd, N.Ramesh Legal Officer vs Jonnala Shankar	29 Oct 2018	Order	—
EP/43/2018	Mekala Babu Rao vs Manda Sudhakar	29 Oct 2018	Decree	—
EP/46/2018	Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., vs Kannuju Eshwarailah JDR.2	29 Oct 2018	Decree	—
EP/62/2017	Panthati Sharadha vs Charlapally Narsamma	29 Oct 2018	Order	—
EP/77/2017	Nampalli Srinivas vs Burra Kumar	29 Oct 2018	Order	—
OS/98/2013	Maraboina Odamma vs Lanka Raghvulu	29 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
OS/211/2015	Marri Vinod Kumar vs Muske Kishtaiah	29 Oct 2018	Order	—
OS/105/2016	Deeti Latha vs Gundanoina Mogili	24 Oct 2018	Order	—
OS/117/2018	KatkuriAshok Reddy vs Janagani Kumaraswamy	24 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
OS/146/2018	Molugu Shiva Priya vs To whomsoever it may concern	24 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
EP/28/2017	Kapil Chit Fund PVT LTD.M.Shiva Prasad vs Shanaveni Srinivas	23 Oct 2018	Order	—
OS/39/2017	Tedla Ramcheder vs Tupakula Gattaiah	23 Oct 2018	Order	—
OS/141/2018	Bandela Saraiah vs Bandela Shankaraiah	23 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
OS/38/2018	Angirka Rajendra Prasad vs Muniganti Sammi Reddy	22 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
OS/61/2013	Esampally swamy vs E iylaiah	22 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
OS/158/2015	Chinthireddy Thirupathi Reddy vs Mamidla Venkat Reddy	22 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
OS/62/2012	Aboju Brahmaiah vs Aboju Sadanda Chary	12 Oct 2018	Order	—
OS/180/2014	kokkula Rajamani vs Musham Lakshapathi	12 Oct 2018	Order	—
OS/186/2017	Manda Ravi Kumar vs Narlagiri Mogili	12 Oct 2018	Order	—
OS/192/2017	Thota Raju vs Dongala Sammaiah	11 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
EP/18/2018	Kapil Chit Fund PVT Ltd, N.Ramesh Legal Officer vs Patha Sammaiah	10 Oct 2018	Order	—
OS/68/2018	Md.Raziya vs Mohd. ainuddin Khan Gazi	10 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
EP/64/2017	Edla Sampath vs Jakkula Bikshapathi	08 Oct 2018	Order	—
OS/218/2012	Madikonda Sampathi Rao vs Polsani Sampath Rao	08 Oct 2018	Order	—
EP/42/2015	Kapil Chit PVT LTD. rep by M.Shiva Prasad vs Pillalamarri Balaji	05 Oct 2018	Decree	—
OS/59/2017	Pingili Raji Reddy vs Pingili Sudhakr Reddy	05 Oct 2018	Other	—
OS/191/2015	Kasam Narayana Reddy vs Kasam Raji Reddy	04 Oct 2018	Order	—
EP/86/2012	Satla Kaavith vs Marripally RajaMouli @ Mogili	03 Oct 2018	Decree	—
OS/97/2018	Irshad Ali Baig vs Sangi Komuraiah	03 Oct 2018	Order	—
EP/2/2017	KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT LTD,JAMMIKUNTA BRANCH, REPBY ITS ZONAL LEGAL OFFICER M.Shiva Prasad vs Kampally Thirupathi	28 Sep 2018	Decree	—
EP/4/2018	KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT LTD, Rep by its Legal Officer, N.Ramesh vs Suddala Srinivas	28 Sep 2018	Decree	—
EP/5/2018	KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT LTD, Rep by its Legal Officer, N.Ramesh vs Dugyala Sammaiah	28 Sep 2018	Decree	—
EP/30/2017	KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT LTD, REP BY M.SHIVA PRASAD vs Manda Subhash Reddy	28 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
EP/54/2017	SHIRAM CHITS PVT LTD A.RAJU vs Maraka Srinivas	28 Sep 2018	Decree	—
EP/74/2017	Margadarshi Chit Funds Pvt, A.Chandraiah, vs Gajjala Venkataiah	28 Sep 2018	Decree	—
EP/88/2016	Kapil Chits Funds Pvt.LTD, Branch Jammikunta, rep by its Zonal Legal Officer M.Shiva Prasad vs B.Ramulu	28 Sep 2018	Decree	—
EP/95/2013	Lingampally Linga rao vs Sirla Radhamma	28 Sep 2018	Decree	—
EP/96/2013	Lingampally Linga rao vs Sirla Radhamma	28 Sep 2018	Decree	—
OS/199/2013	Manda Ram Reddy vs Katkuri Thirupathi rEddy	28 Sep 2018	Order	—
OS/205/2017	Chilagani Bikshapathi vs Dualm Ramdharshan	28 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
EP/53/2011	Varikela Rajmouli vs Errarapu Subbarao	27 Sep 2018	Decree	—
OS/83/2012	Thupakula Rama Swmy vs Sheelam Srinivas	27 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
OS/60/2018	Thangella Ramulu vs Thallapally Narsaiah	26 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
OS/248/2017	Nimmala Rajeshwar Reddy vs Kompelli Srinivas Reddy	26 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
OS/83/2018	Boragalla Ravi vs Boragalla Pochaiah	25 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
OS/111/2018	Boddu Rajaiah vs Boddu Pochaiah @ Sanjeev	25 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
EP/37/2017	Kapil Chit Fund Pvt Ltd.Rep by M.Shiva Prasad vs Madduri Shankaraiah	24 Sep 2018	Decree	—
OS/12/2014	Cheripalli Ravinder vs Dr Mukka Krishna Murthy	24 Sep 2018	Order	—
OS/20/2018	Thorne Laxmi vs Garige Anjaiah	24 Sep 2018	Order	—
OS/53/2018	Manda Chiranjeevi vs Goskula Rajaiah	24 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
OS/98/2017	Seshala Srinivas vs Gande Raju	24 Sep 2018	Order	—
OS/152/2015	Dommati Rajamallu vs Yasarla Shanker	24 Sep 2018	Order	—
OS/331/2012	Mandadi Malla Reddy vs Mandadi Malla Reddy	24 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
OS/89/2012	Kolakni Komuraiah vs Kolakani Komuraiah	20 Sep 2018	Order	—
OS/173/2017	Akoju Veera Chary vs Bommisheti Komuraiah	19 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
OS/223/2012	Samella Devasahayam vs Karengula Amruthamma	19 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
EP/10/2018	KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT LTD, Rep by its Legal Officer, N.Ramesh vs Takur Ravi	18 Sep 2018	Order	—
EP/22/2017	Kpail Chits Funds Pvt Ltd., Jammikunta , Branch,rep by its Zonal Legal Officer, M.Shiva Prasad vs Bandi Ramaiah	18 Sep 2018	Other	—
EP/70/2017	KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT LTD, Rep by its Legal Officer, N.Ramesh vs Bathini Vinay Kumar	18 Sep 2018	Order	—
OS/145/2014	Ravula Raji Reddy vs Ravula Thirupathi Reddy	18 Sep 2018	Order	—
EP/17/2017	Dulam Venkata Swamy vs Potharavena Ellaiah	12 Sep 2018	Decree	—
OS/46/2017	Eggala Sampath vs Mididoddi Shankaraiah	12 Sep 2018	Order	—
EP/37/2018	Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. vs Dasarapu Kumara Swamy J.Dr.4	10 Sep 2018	Decree	—
OS/209/2013	Perala Upender Upendram vs Athikam Venugopal	08 Sep 2018	Order	—
OS/19/2017	Peddi Kishan Reddy vs Kukkala Neeraja	05 Sep 2018	Order	—
EP/31/2013	Enukonda Devender Reddy vs Muddam Sambaiah	04 Sep 2018	Order	—
EP/35/2015	Rao Brothers Chit Fund PVT LTD,Rep V.Raghupathi vs Dubashi Veeraswamy	04 Sep 2018	Order	—
OS/200/2016	MYAKAM NARAYANA vs MYKAM MANEMMA	04 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
OS/20/2016	Merugu Vikyath Reddy vs Merugu Prasad Reddy	31 Aug 2018	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 191 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Dec 2018		14
Nov 2018		14
Oct 2018		32
Sep 2018		39
Aug 2018		43
Jul 2018		31
Jun 2018		19

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SRI K.K.V. BULI KRISHNA handled?

SRI K.K.V. BULI KRISHNA has handled 192 court orders since 2018 at Huzurabad, SCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 24 orders per month.

What types of cases does SRI K.K.V. BULI KRISHNA hear?

Based on available records, SRI K.K.V. BULI KRISHNA primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Huzurabad, SCJ Court Complex.

Where is SRI K.K.V. BULI KRISHNA currently posted?

SRI K.K.V. BULI KRISHNA is posted as Prl Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad, SCJ Court Complex, Karimnagar, Telangana.

Are judgments by SRI K.K.V. BULI KRISHNA available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by SRI K.K.V. BULI KRISHNA are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SRI K.K.V. BULI KRISHNA dispose cases?

SRI K.K.V. BULI KRISHNA disposes approximately 24 cases per month, based on 192 orders handled over their tenure at Huzurabad, SCJ Court Complex.

Since when is SRI K.K.V. BULI KRISHNA serving?

SRI K.K.V. BULI KRISHNA has been serving at Huzurabad, SCJ Court Complex since 2018.

Case Types

OS 66%

EP 33%

OP 1%

Posting History

May 2018 — Dec 2018

Prl Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class · 192 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri. P.B. Kiran Kumar

Senior Civil Judge Karimnagar

536 orders

Ms. Padma Sai Sree

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

287 orders

Ms. K.Veena Pranathi

II Addl Junior Civil Judge

7 orders

← View all judges at Huzurabad, SCJ Court Complex

Sri K.k.v. Buli Krishna

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUZURABAD

HUZURABAD.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.40 of 2011

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

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

EXHIBITS MARKED

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUZURABAD

HUZURABAD.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.165 of 2016

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

amount from the defendant as prayed for?

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

EXHIBITS MARKED

HUZURABAD.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

EXHIBITS MARKED

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

EXHIBITS MARKED

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD

-:: O R D E R ::-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.