Sri K. Prasad

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Peddpalli - SCJ Court Complex · Peddapalli · Telangana

Sri K. Prasad, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, is posted at Peddpalli - SCJ Court Complex, Peddapalli, Telangana, India. 189 court orders on record since 2020. 7 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles H, OS, EP cases.

189

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/44/2013

sunke krieshna murthy vs SUNKE SHAKARAMMA

28 Jan 2021

1 OS.No.44 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANTHANI.

PRESENT: SRI.K.PRASAD,

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARIMNAGAR

FAC:SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,MANTHANI

Thursday, this the 28th day of January, 2021

O.S. No.44 OF 2013

Between:-

Sunke Krishnamurthi,S/o.Pochanna @ Pochaiah, age:35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kapuwada,Mahadevpur, Karimnagar district ….Plaintif

And

1.Sunke Shakaramma,W/o.Pochanna,age:60 years, Occ: Household

2.Akula Rajeshwari,W/o.Lingaiah, age:40 years, Occ: Household

3.Tungala Laxmi,W/o.Swamy, age:32 years, Occ:Household

4.TungalaAnjali,W/o.Madhukar,age:27years,Occ: Household All are R/o.Kapuwada,Mahadevpur village and mandal of Karimnagar district ….Defendants

This suit come before me on 17-12-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.V.L.N.Hari Babu and Sri.B.Anjaneyulu, Advocates for the plaintif and Sri.P.Ashok Kumar,Advocate for the Defendants, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: JUDGMENT ::

1. This suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendants for declaration of title and perpetual injunction.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintif is the absolute joint owner and possessor of land in Sy.Nos.666/A,692 admeasuring Ac.2-27 gts and Ac.1-04 gts total admeasuring Ac.3-31 gts situated at Mahadevpur shivar of Mahadevpur mandal. The plaintif further submits that the defendant No.1 is the mother and defendant

Nos.2 to 4 are sisters of the plaintif. The plaintif acquired the suit land from the defendant No.1 who is under the care and custody of plaintif through a simple gift settlement deed dt 11-2-2011. Thereafter the 2 plaintif possessed the same and invested money by digging a bore well in the suit land and obtained electricity connection. Since then the plaintif raised various crops and he raised paddy crop during the year. The

Revenue authorities also incorporated the name of plaintif in the possession column in respect of suit land but he did not mutate his name in the patta column. The plaintif further submits that defendant Nos.2 to 4 who are his sisters is no way concerned with the suit land trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintif to grab the same by creating false and fabricated documents. The plaintif further submits that defendant No.1 got issued legal notice on 17-6-2013 to the plaintif and he gave reply on 25-7-2013 under the intimation of Sub-registrar and

Tahsildar concerned. Inspite of that on 16.8.2013 when the plaintif was doing agricultural work in the suit land the defendants along with some unsocial elements came to the suit land and tried to dispossess the plaintif from the suit land forcibly but the plaintif resisted the illegal acts of the defendants with great difficulty with the help of neighbouring cultivators. Hence the suit.

3. On the other hand D1 to D4 filed their written statement by denying the plaint averments and stated that defendant No.1 is the mother defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the sisters of plaintif. The defendants further submits that on 17-6-2013 the defendant No.1 issued legal notice to the plaintif and the same was replied by the plaintif. The suit land came to the defendant No.1 from her mother some time back and had been cultivating the same from some years by raising paddy crop and enjoying the same and living separately from the plaintif. That out of love and afection the defendant No.1 transferred the suit land to the defendant Nos.2 to 4 by way of gift deeds before the Sub-Registrar office on 25-7-2013. That as per gift deed defendant No.2 got Ac.1-04 gts in

Sy.No.692 bearing doc.no.2345/2013 dt 25-7-2013, defendant No.3 got 3

Ac.1-13 gts in Sy.No.666/A of Mahadevpur shivar and mandal bearing doc.

no.2346/2013 dt 25-7-2013 through gift deed from the defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 got Ac.1-13½ gts in Sy.No.666/A of Mahadevpur shivar and mandal bearing doc.no.2347/2013 dt 25-7-2013 through gift deed from defendant No.1. That the defendant Nos.2 to 4 also applied before

Tahsildar,Mahadevpur for mutation. That in the pahanies from the years 2010 to 2013 defendant No.1 is appeared as pattadar in 12 column and in 13 column appeared as possessor. On 17-6-2013 the defendant No.1 obtained Mee-seva pahanies in which the defendant No.1 name is appearing as pattadar and possessor in column Nos.12 and 13 and the plaintif fabricated documents and obtained injunction order behind the defendants from the court and after going through both sides documents the injunction vacated and hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the above pleadings this court has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title of the suit schedule property as prayed for?

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

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex A1 to Ex A5. Thupakula Ramanna examined as PW2 and

Kasu Swamy examined as PW3. On the other hand, the defendant No.3 examined as DW1 and Exs.B1 to B11 marked. The defendant No.2 is examined as DW2 and defendant No.4 is examined as DW3.

6.Heard arguments on both sides.

7. ISSUE No.1:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title of the suit schedule property as prayed for?

The main contention of the plaintiff is that he acquired the suit land from his mother/defendant No.1 through unregistered gift settlement deed

dt 1122011 under family settlement in the year 2011. The said gift deed dt

1122011 has been produced and marked as Ex.A1 on behalf of the plaintiff. Admittedly the same is an unregistered gift deed. Admissibility of

Ex.A1 as a piece of evidence is objected by the counsel for the defendant.

Therefore Burden is on the plaintiff to establish that defendant No.1 executed gift deed dt 1122011 and thereby gifted the schedule property to him. Here the defendant No.1 denied the very execution of the said gift deed and alleged that the plaintiff created,bogus and fabricated gift deed.

8.Now it has to be seen the provisions dealt with Gift in Transfer of

Property Act.

Sec.122 of Transfer of Property Act defines ‘Gift’ and ‘Transfer how effected’ explained in Sec.123 of Transfer of Property Act.

Sec.122. "Gift" defined:-"Gift" is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.

Acceptance when to be made:- Such acceptance may be made during the life time of the donor and while he is still capable of giving.

If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.

Sec.123. Transfer how effected:-For the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be efected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor; and attested by atleast two witnesses.

For the purpose of making a gift of movable property, the transfer may be efected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery.

Such delivery may be made in the same way as goods sold may be delivered.

It is clear from the Section 122, Section 123 of Transfer of Property

Act, the Gift must be effected through a registered document and it must be 5 attested. Therefore, the plaintiff has to establish and prove the execution, particularly when defendant denying the very execution of gift deed.

9.In a decision reported in AIR 2019 SC 4822 between Govind Bai

Chota Bai Patel and others V/s Patel Raman Bai Mathura Bai Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India held that:

“Under the absence of specific denial of execution of gift deed, it is not mandatory for the donee to examine any attesting witness to prove the due execution of gift deed”.

But in this case there is specific denial by the defendant No.1 about the execution of Ex.A1, then it is mandatory for the donee, to prove the execution of gift deed by examining an attesting witness.

10. Sec.68 of Indian Evidence Act,1972 provides for proof of execution, which reads as under:

Proof of execution of document required by law to

be attested:- If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence:

1[Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act,XVI of 1908 unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.]

11.To discharge the burden of proving the execution of gift, the plaintiff examined PWs.2 and 3. As per the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the defendant

No.1 executed gift settlement deed dated 1122011 in their presence. Here the counsel for defendant brought to the notice of the court that Ex.A1 gift deed dt 1122011 drafted on 10 Rupees Stamp paper and on careful scrutiny of Ex.A1 it is revealing that the signatures of witnesses, on Ex.A1 6 are taken in advance and got print the matter subsequently as such the matter ran over the signatures of attestors.

For better appreciation the image of Ex.A1 is extracted here.

12.Now it has to be seen what is attestation under Transfer of Property

Act. Section 3 of Interpretation Clause: {“attested”, in relation to an instrument, means and shall vbe deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary};

On perusal of Ex.A1 the matter was ran over the signatures of attestors. Therefore it is clear that the attestors signed on the Ex.A1 prior to writing the matter. Therefore the execution of Ex.A1 is not in accordance with Sec.3 of Transfer of Property Act.

13. The counsel for the defendant brought to the notice of the court, that

Ex.A1 is fictitious, bogus and created for the purpose of the suit and a criminal case was registered against the plaintiff and pointed out that in

Ex.A5/Ex.B8 reply notice dt 2572013 given by the counsel for the plaintiff, wherein there is no mention about the Ex.A1. As per his contention Ex.A1 allegedly executed on 1122011 but the same was not mentioned in reply notice dt 2572013. Therefore it can be presumed that Ex.A1 brought into existence after 2572013. That is clearly establishing after thought of the plaintiff. It is also an admitted fact in the crossexamination of PW1 that a criminal case was registered against plaintiff for forgery with regard to

Ex.A1.

14. The counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued that the plaintiff herein impounded the Ex.A1 as such it can be relied on to establish the case of the plaintiff. But the counsel for defendant vehemently replied that even if a document is impounded it can be referred to collateral purpose but not to establish the right of the plaintiff.

Ex.A1 unregistered gift deed was impounded U/Sec.35 of Indian

Stamp Act and stamp duty with penalty was paid by the plaintiff.

But the collection of Stamp duty on a document which is subjected to

Stamp duty is different from registration of the document under Registration

Act. Once stamp duty is paid the document qualifies for consideration as to its admissibility in evidence.

In Ammamuthu Ammal (died) and others v/s. Devaraj and

others (2011 5 MLJ 15), it was held that; “If the stamp duty is paid, then it can be referred to for a collateral purpose, but, even if the stamp duty and penalty is paid, if the document is unregistered, it cannot be looked into for any purpose other than the collateral purpose”.

Therefore an unregistered document even though it is impounded, any right, title, interest, terms and conditions mentioned in that document cannot be enforced,

15. Sec.17 of Registration Act reads as under:

Documents of which registration is compulsory: (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No.XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act,1866, or the Indian Registration Act,1871, or the Indian Registration Act,1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:

(a) instruments of gift of immovable property:

16.Now it has to be seen Sec.49 of Registration Act, which reads as under:

Sec.49: Effect of nonregistration of documents required

to be registered: No document required by Section 17 (or by any provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, (4 of 1882), to be registered shall

a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or

b) confer an power to adopt, or

c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:

(Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act, or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act,1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.)

As per Sec.49 of Registration Act, following facts would emerge:

i) A document required to be registered u/s 17 but not registered, is not admissible into evidence.

ii) Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Sec.49 of Registration Act iii) A collateral transaction must be independent of or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration iv) A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating,etc. Any right, title or interest in immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards.

v) If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence.

17.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported in AIR 2001 SC 3648 between Income tax Commissioner v/s Hirehmal Nawalakha, wherein it has been held that; 10 “A valid Transfer of property by way of a gift, the compliance of provisions of Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act are compulsory”.

18. A reading of Sec.17, 49 of Registration Act shows that document requires to be registered but not registered cannot be used for any purpose.

But as per the proviso to Sec.49 of Registration Act, it can be looked into for a limited purpose i.e. collateral purpose. But,where as coming to the Ex.A1 it is qualified as admissible evidence on behalf of plaintiff,but no right, title or interest can be passed through it, in view of the Sec.17,49 of Registration

Act. Therefore, Ex.A1 does not create any title in favour of the plaintiff.

When the Ex.A1 is not useful to the plaintiff in proving his title over suit schedule property the entire case of plaintiff fails.

In view of the above said facts, I hold that plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of title of the suit schedule property as prayed for. Accordingly the issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiff.

19.Issue No.2:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

As the issue No.1 answered against the plaintif, the plaintif is not entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for.

20.Issue No.3:

To what relief?

In the result, the suit is dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by Shorthand writer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28th day of January,

2021.

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR

FAC:SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANTHANI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1S.Krishnamurthy DW1 T.Laxmi PW2T.Ramanna DW2 A.Rajeshwari PW3K.Swamy DW3 T.Anjali :EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex A.1: Gift settlement deed dt 1122011(marked subject to objection with regard to nonregistration) Ex A.2: Electricity bills(9 in number)issued by NPDC) Ex A.3: CC of pahanies for the year 201011,201112,201213 Ex A.4: Office copy of legal notice dt 1762013 Ex A.5: Office copy of Reply notice dt 2572013

FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1: Pattadar pass book Ex.B2: Copy of Pahani for the year 1423 fasli issued by MeeSeva

dt 1772013 in Sy.No.692 at Mahadevpur village

Ex.B3: Copy of Pahani for the year 1423 fasli issued by MeeSeva

dt 1772013 in Sy.No.666A at Mahadevpur village

Ex.B4: Original Gift settlement deed vide doc.no.2345/2013 dt 2572013 Ex.B5: Original Gift settlement deed vide doc.no.2346/2013 dt 2572013 Ex.B6: Original Gift settlement deed vide doc.no.2347/2013 dt 2572013 Ex.B7: Office copy of legal notice dt 1762013 Ex.B8: Reply notice dt 2572013 Ex.B9: Office copy of letter addressed to the Tahsildar,Mahadevpur

dt 2572013

Ex.B10: Office copy of letter addressed to the Tahsildar,Mahadevpur

dt 2572013

Ex.B11: Office copy of letter addressed to the Tahsildar,Mahadevpur

dt 2572013

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR

FAC:SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANTHANI

H.M.O.P/129/2019

Gadarla Rakesh vs Gadarla Ramya@Mothkuri Danalaxmi

24 Aug 2021

Page No.1/7

HMOP 129/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT: K. PRASAD,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar

FAC: SCJ, Peddapalli.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of August, 2021

H.M.O.P. NO. 129 OF 2019

Between: Gajarla Rakesh, S/o. Ramchandram, Aged: about 25 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Motlapalli village of Srirampoor Mandal, Peddapalli District.

…...Petitioner No.1.

And

Gajarla Ramya @ Mothkuri Danalaxmi, W/o. Rakesh, D/o. late Kumaraswamy, Aged: 20 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Motlapalli village of Srirampur Mandal of Peddapalli District presently residing at Rachapalli Village of Illanthakunta Mandal in Karimnagar District.

…...Petitioner No.2.

This petition is coming on 17.08.2021before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Sarotham Reddy, Advocate for petitioner No.1 and that of Sri P. Sridhar Babu & T. Ajay Kranthi Singh, Advocates for petitioner No.2, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day the court delivered the following: :: O R D E R ::

1. Initially the petitioner filed a petition U/Sec.13(1) (ia) of Hindu

Marriage Act for grant of divorce on a ground of cruelty. Subsequently both the petitioner and respondent settled the issue out of the Court and filed a petition in IA No.367/2021 to amend the petition from U/Sec.13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act to U/Sec.13B of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce on mutual consent. The said petition was allowed an amendment carried out and filed neat copy of joint petition U/Sec.13B of

Hindu Marriage Act.

Page No.2/7

HMOP 129/2019

2. According to the averments in the joint petition and representation made by their respective counsels, the petitioners are Hindus by religion and they are governed by Hindu Law, and their marriage is the one recognized as valid by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. According to the averments in the petition the marriage of the first petitioner and second petitioner was solemnized on 29.11.2017 at the parental house of the second petitioner, at Rachapalli village of Illanthakunta Mandal of

Karimnagar District as per Hindu rites and Customs prevailing in their community without taking any dowry or other things etc. During their wedlock, they have no issues as their marriage is not consummated.

Since the parents of the second petitioner are very poor in financial the first petitioner parents gave money for preparation of Mangal Suthras.

Prior to the marriage the second petitioner underwent intestine operation.

By suppressing the said fact the mother of the second petitioner arranged the marriage as the father of the second petitioner was died. After the marriage, the second petitioner used to quarrel with the first petitioner and his parents and the second petitioner totally neglected the works of the house and used to give lethargic answers to the first petitioner. The second petitioner always used in the habit of using cell phones with third persons. Whenever the first petitioner questioned the second petitioner used to give answer by treating the first petitioner as useless person and totally not interested towards the first petitioner in matrimonial life.

Page No.3/7

HMOP 129/2019

3.On 03012018 the second petitioner left the society of the first petitioner without giving any information in the house. Thereafter the petitioner No.1 several times made efforts to bring back the petitioner

No.2 and several panchayats were also conducted in the presence of

Sanga Narayana and Durgam Laxman and others. Whenever panchayats conducted the second petitioner used to come to the house of the petitioner No.1 and used to live for few days. In the said period the petitioner No.2 used to threaten the petitioner No.1 as the petitioner No.2 is going to commit suicide if the petitioner forcefully brought the petitioner No.2 for marital life. In that occasion once the petitioner No.2 tried to hand to the fan by threatening the petitioner No.1. Further in the mid night hours the petitioenr No.2 used to behave like a giant (Dayyam) and used to beat the petitioner No.1 on chest and used to left the room by going to the mother of the petitioner No.1.

4.It is further submitted that in the month of April, 2019 the petitioner No.2 permanently left the society of the petitioner No.1 and thereafter four panchayaths were conducted and in the presence of the elders the petitioner No.2 openly stated that as the petitioner No.2 is totally dislike towards the petitioner No.1 and used to threaten the petitioner No.1 as the petitioner No.2 is going to file criminal cases in

Illanthakunta Police station against the petitioner No.1 and his parents.

Though the police made counseling the petitioner No.2 did not changed her attitudes. By the attitudes of the petitioner No.2 the petitioner faced

Page No.4/7

HMOP 129/2019

lot of mental agony. In these circumstances, the petitioner No.1 had no other alternate remedy except to file the present petition for grant of divorce under the ground of cruelty by invoking before this Court.

5. It is further submitted that the elders on behalf of the petitioner

No.1 and petitioner No.2 sat together conducted a final panchayat on 05072021. in the said panchayat both the petitioners agreed to take divorce with mutual consent. By that both the petitioners exchanged their all gold, silver and other household articles and nothing is remained anything belongs to either of the parties. The couple began living separately for a period of more than two years till today. They have not able to live together as wife and husband and there is no possibility of any reconciliation or reunion between them. It is therefore agreed between them that their marriage should be got dissolved through the Court of

Law on mutual consent. It is therefore necessary in the interest of both the petitioners that the marriage between them be dissolved by a decree of divorce, so that they may be able to lead their lives independently and remarry if they so desire.

6. Both the petitioners herein have exchanged their articles which were presented to them at the time of their marriage and also both the petitioners herein agreed mutually not to file any cases against each other in future in any manner i.e., criminal and civil cases before in any court and there is no scope of their reunion in future and there is no possibility

Page No.5/7

HMOP 129/2019

to live as husband and wife. As per the terms of their agreement, the petitioner No.1 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,65,000/ (Rupees Two lakhs and sixty five thousand only) to the petitioner No.2 towards present, past and future maintenance and permanent alimony and the petitioner

No.2 also agreed for the same, which amount is deposited upon the names of both side elders and the amount will be paid to the petitioner

No.1 after compromise of CC No.119/2020 before the JMFC, Huzurabad.

The said amount is paid to the shape of permanent alimony to the petitioner No.2 and the petitioner No.2 has no claim against the petitioner

No.1 in future against the person and property of the petitioner No1. The said amount is deposited with the elders of both sides.

7. Both the petitioners are filing the present petition for grant of divorce on mutual consent as both parties are not at all interested to carry matrimonial life and they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved.

8. In the above circumstances the petitioner No.1 and 2 came to the conclusion that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and 2 is on the rocks and there is no possibility of reunion and the petitioner No.1 and 2 and they are started living separately from 03012018 i.e., for more than two years till today and finally the parties are decided to take divorce to each other before the elders. In these circumstances, the petitioners have no other go except to approach before the Court for the

Page No.6/7

HMOP 129/2019

grant of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 by way of mutual consent.

9. It is further stated by the petitioners in their joint petition that the petitioners are living separately in their respective houses. It is stated that due to disputes both the petitioners approached the elders of their community to iron out the differences for reunion of the petitioners, but in vain. According to the petitioners and their counsels, both the petitioners have negotiated with each other and having arrived at a conclusion that it would not be possible to live together, they have decided to get their marriage dissolved by legal process. Therefore, they have filed this joint petition before this court.

10. The first petitioner and second petitioner are examined as P.W’s. 1 and 2 respectively and Ex.P1/wedding card is marked.

11. On 17.08.2021 both the petitioners are examined as P.W’s. 1 and 2 and Ex.P1 wedding card is marked. On enquiry both the petitioners have stated that they stick to their decision to get their marriage dissolved. After going through the evidence of the petitioners and basing on the enquiry made by the court, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have taken decision voluntarily and their consent of the parties to the petition is free. Therefore, the petition is to be allowed.

Page No.7/7

HMOP 129/2019

12. In the result, this petition is allowed and the marriage between the first petitioner and second petitioner solemnized on 29.11.2017 is hereby dissolved on their mutual consent by granting a decree of divorce under

Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, and after corrections

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of August, 2021.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: SCJ, PEDDAPALLI.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Petitioner No.1For the Petitioner No.2

PW1 Gajarla RakeshPW2 Gajarla Ramya @ Mothkuri Danalaxmi

Exhibits marked

For the Petitioner No.1

Ex.P1 is the wedding card.

For the Petitioner No.2

Nil

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: SCJ, PEDDAPALLI.

H.M.O.P/28/2021

Pittala Lavanya @ Sharadha vs Pittala Ravi Kumar

26 Aug 2021

Page 1/6

HMOP 28/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT: K. PRASAD,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar

FAC: SCJ, Peddapalli.

Thursday, this the 26th day of August, 2021

H.M.O.P. NO. 28 OF 2021

Between:

Pittala Lavanya @ Sharadha, W/o. Ravi Kumar, aged: about 29 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.1Pothkapalli village in Odela Mandal, Peddapalli District at present residing at Pittala Yellaiahpalli village in Odela Mandal of Peddapalli District.

…...Petitioner No.1.

// A n d //

Pittala Ravi Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged: about 34 years, Occ: Cooli, R/o. H.No.1Pothkapalli village in Odela Mandal, Peddapalli District.

…...Petitioner No.2.

This petition is coming on 24.08.2021before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Saraiah, Advocate for Petitioner No.1 and that of Sri N. Shankaraiah, Advocate for Petitioner No.2, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day the court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1. This is a petition filed by the wife and husband voluntarily for dissolution of their marriage under section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, on their mutual consent.

2. According to the averments in the joint petition and representation made by their respective counsels, the petitioners are Hindus by religion and they are governed by Mithakshara School of Hindu Law, and their

Page 2/6

HMOP 28/2021

marriage is the one recognized as valid by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

According to the averments in the petition the marriage of the first petitioner and second petitioner was solemnized on 06.12.2007 at the village of the first petitioner i.e., Pittalayellaiahpalli village, Odela Mandal,

Peddapalli District as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. During their wedlock, they have no issues. After the marriage, the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 carried out their matrimonial life for the period of eleven years without any disputes.

Thereafter there were some serious disputes and differences arose between them with regard to the misunderstandings, both side elders advised the petitioners to carry the matrimonial life in amicable and adjustable way. There were so many panchayats convened between the couple, but the both petitioners did not heard the advice of the elders and there is no scope to carry the matrimonial life in further. The petitioner

No.1 and the petitioner No.2 are residing separately from 25032018 onwards without any back step. The couple is unable to lead their marital life with each other. There were so many panchayaths convened between the couple were turned futile. The couple began living separately for a period of more than two years till this day and the petitioners have not been able to live together. But the both petitioners did not heard the advice of the elders and there is no scope to carry the matrimonial life in further. But in the said panchayat both parties expressed their willingness to take divorce with mutual consent as there was no adjustable circumstances in between them and that the petitioners have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. Accordingly, the

Page 3/6

HMOP 28/2021

petitioners decided to take mutual divorce by approaching before this

Court. As such the petitioners are filing the present petition before the court for grant of divorce by dissolving the marital life of the both petitioners.

3. The parents of both the parties and other elders were intervened in the matter and tried to settle amicably. The elders of both the parties and well wishers tried to reunite the parties but the same was went in vain. The first petitioner and the second petitioner are residing separately from 25032018 i.e., for more than two years till this day without any back step. Both parties elders finally conducted a panchayat, in the said panchayath both parties agreed to take divorce with mutual consent. The petitioners submitted that there was no cohabitation between them and they have not been able to live together and there is no possibility of any reconciliation or reunion between them. The petitioner No.1 and 2 decided that their marriage should be dissolved through Court of Law on mutual consent. It is therefore necessary in the interest of both the parties that the marriage between them be dissolved by a decree of divorce, so that they may be able to lead their lives independently or remarry if they so desire.

4.The petitioners submitted that there was no cohabitation between them and there is no scope for reunion or reconciliation. As per the terms of their agreement, the petitioner No.2 is giving an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees five lakhs only) in the shape of permanent alimony

Page 4/6

HMOP 28/2021

to the petitioner No.1 and both petitioners exchanged their silver, gold and other household articles whatever presented at the time of marriage.

That the petitioner No.2 already paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rupees

Two lakhs only) to the petitioner No.1 and the balance amount of

Rs.3,00,000/ (Rupees Three lakhs only) will be paid to the petitioner

No.1 by the petitioner No.2 on the date of divorce. Further the petitioner

No.1 agreed to forego all rights against the person and property of the petitioner No.2 either in the shape of the both petitioners is totally dissolved and from today onwards both petitioners are not at all as wife and husband and there is no relationship is in existence. Further the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 exchanged their all respective gold, silver and other household articles which were secured and nothing is remained with either of the petitioners and either of the petitioner have no claim against the marriages if any both petitioners intending to get separately and the both petitioners are liberated to get separate marriages. Therefore, both parties are hereby filed this petition for dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent as there is no changes for their reunion and their dissolution marriage is inevitable.

Since then the petitioner No.1 having no right and title over the person and property of the petitioner No.2, further she has also no right to file any cases etc. Both the petitioners have exchanged their respect items and other household articles which were presented to them at the time of their marriage and both parties have no claims against each other and in the future.

Page 5/6

HMOP 28/2021

5. As per first petitioner and second petitioner on their own wish and will and at the advice of elders have agreed to apply for mutual consent divorce and to seek decree for divorce as there is no possibility of reunion them. Both petitioners herein agreed mutually to withdraw all the cases if any pending before any court, and not to file any cases against each other in future before any court. The petitioners have been living separately for more than two years till this day. It is therefore necessary in the interest of both the petitioners, the marriage between them be dissolved by a decree of divorce. Both the petitioners filed the present petition for grant of divorce on mutual consent as both parties are not at all interested to carry matrimonial life.

6. It is further stated by the petitioners in their joint petition that the petitioners are living separately in their respective houses. It is stated that due to disputes arose between them, both the petitioners approached the elders of their community to iron out the differences for reunion of the petitioners, but in vain. According to the petitioners and their counsels, both the petitioners have negotiated with each other and having arrived at a conclusion that it would not be possible to live together, they have decided to get their marriage dissolved by legal process. Therefore, they have filed this joint petition before this court.

7. The statutory period of six months was already completed. On 24.08.2021both the petitioners are examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and Ex.P1 wedding card is marked. On enquiry both the petitioners have stated that

Page 6/6

HMOP 28/2021

they stick to their decision to get their marriage dissolved. After going through the evidence of the petitioners and basing on the enquiry made by me in the court, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have taken decision voluntarily and their consent of the parties to the petition is free.

Therefore, the petition is to be allowed.

8. In the result, this petition is allowed and the marriage between the first petitioner and second petitioner solemnized on 06.12.2007 is hereby dissolved on their mutual consent by granting a decree of divorce under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, and after corrections

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26 th day of August, 2021.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: SCJ, PEDDAPALLI.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Petitioner No.1For the Petitioner No.2

PW1 Pittala Lavanya @ SharadhaPW2 Pittala Ravi Kumar

Exhibits marked

For the Petitioner No.1

Ex.P1 is the wedding card.

For the Petitioner No.2

Nil

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: SCJ, PEDDAPALLI.

H.M.O.P/28/2021

Pittala Lavanya @ Sharadha vs Pittala Ravi Kumar

24 Aug 2021

Page 1/6

HMOP 28/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT: K. PRASAD,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar

FAC: SCJ, Peddapalli.

Thursday, this the 26th day of August, 2021

H.M.O.P. NO. 28 OF 2021

Between:

…...Petitioner No.1.

// A n d //

Pittala Ravi Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged: about 34 years, Occ: Cooli, R/o. H.No.1Pothkapalli village in Odela Mandal, Peddapalli District.

…...Petitioner No.2.

:: O R D E R ::

1. This is a petition filed by the wife and husband voluntarily for dissolution of their marriage under section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, on their mutual consent.

Page 2/6

HMOP 28/2021

marriage is the one recognized as valid by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Page 3/6

HMOP 28/2021

petitioners decided to take mutual divorce by approaching before this

Court. As such the petitioners are filing the present petition before the court for grant of divorce by dissolving the marital life of the both petitioners.

Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees five lakhs only) in the shape of permanent alimony

Page 4/6

HMOP 28/2021

to the petitioner No.1 and both petitioners exchanged their silver, gold and other household articles whatever presented at the time of marriage.

That the petitioner No.2 already paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rupees

Two lakhs only) to the petitioner No.1 and the balance amount of

Rs.3,00,000/ (Rupees Three lakhs only) will be paid to the petitioner

No.1 by the petitioner No.2 on the date of divorce. Further the petitioner

Page 5/6

HMOP 28/2021

Page 6/6

HMOP 28/2021

Therefore, the petition is to be allowed.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, and after corrections

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26 th day of August, 2021.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: SCJ, PEDDAPALLI.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Petitioner No.1For the Petitioner No.2

PW1 Pittala Lavanya @ SharadhaPW2 Pittala Ravi Kumar

Exhibits marked

For the Petitioner No.1

Ex.P1 is the wedding card.

For the Petitioner No.2

Nil

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: SCJ, PEDDAPALLI.

H.M.O.P/116/2020

Dandigari Ravi Kumar vs Bathula @ Dandigari Sudha Rani

24 Aug 2021

Page 1/6

HMOP 116/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT: K. PRASAD,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar

FAC: SCJ, Peddapalli.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of August, 2021

H.M.O.P. NO. 116 OF 2020

Between:

Dandigari Ravi Kumar, S/o. Sambashiva Rao, age: 35 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, R/o. H.No.21680, Gouthaminagar, Fertilizer City, Ramagundam Mdandal, Peddapalli District.

…...Petitioner No.1.

// A n d //

Bathula @ Dandigari Sudha Rani, W/o. Dandigiri Ravi Kumar, D/o. Nageshwar Rao, age: 32 years, Caste: SC (Mala), Occ: Housewife, R/o. Qr.No.10/87, NTPC, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District.

…...Petitioner No.2.

This petition is coming on 17.08.2021before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Venkatesh, Advocate for Petitioner No.1 and that of Sri V. Arun Kumar, Advocate for Petitioner No.2, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day the court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1. This is a petition filed by the husband and wife voluntarily for dissolution of their marriage under section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, on their mutual consent.

Page 2/6

HMOP 116/2020

According to the averments in the petition the marriage of the first petitioner and second petitioner was solemnized on 14.06.2012 at Arya

Samaj, Kukatpalli, Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. During the wedlock, the petitioner No.2 blessed with a female child on 18122019, marriage certificate issued by the Registrar

Hindu Marriage Peddapalli on 23012019. Thereafter one and half month of the marriage there were serious disputes and differences arose between them with regard to the misunderstandings, there were so many panchayats convened between the couple, both the petitioners lived happily, the petitioner No.1 started harassed cruel. As a result, the petitioner No.2 on 05102018 returned from her matrimonial home at

NTPC and staying at her parent’s house. The couple is unable to lead their marital life with each other. There were so many panchayaths convened between the couple were turned futile. The couple began living separately for a period of last two years till this dayand the petitioners have not been able to live together. But the both petitioners did not heard the advice of the elders and there is no scope to carry the matrimonial life in further. But in the said panchayat both parties expressed their willingness to take divorce with mutual consent as there was no adjustable circumstances in between them and that the petitioners have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. Accordingly, the

Page 3/6

HMOP 116/2020

petitioners decided to take mutual divorce by approaching before this

Court. As such the petitioners are filing the present petition before the court for grant of divorce by dissolving the marital life of the both petitioners.

3. The parents of both the parties and other elders were intervened in the matter and tried to settle amicably. The elders of both the parties and well wishers tried to reunite the parties but the same was went in vain. The first petitioner and the second petitioner are residing separately from 05102018 i.e., for more than two years till this day without any back step. Both parties elders finally conducted a panchayat, in the said panchayath both parties agreed to take divorce with mutual consent. The petitioners submitted that there was no cohabitation between them and they have not been able to live together and there is no possibility of any reconciliation or reunion between them. The petitioner No.1 and 2 decided that their marriage should be dissolved through Court of Law on mutual consent. It is therefore necessary in the interest of both the parties that the marriage between them be dissolved by a decree of divorce, so that they may be able to lead their lives independently or remarry if they so desire.

Page 4/6

HMOP 116/2020

agreed by the both parties. Therefore, both parties are hereby filed this petition for dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent as there is no changes for their reunion and their dissolution marriage is inevitable. Since then the petitioner No.2 having no right and title over the person and property of the petitioner No.1, further she has also no right to file any cases etc. Both the petitioners have exchanged their respect items and other household articles which were presented to them at the time of their marriage and both parties have no claims against each other and in the future.

Page 5/6

HMOP 116/2020

the elders of their community to iron out the differences for reunion of the petitioners, but in vain. According to the petitioners and their counsels, both the petitioners have negotiated with each other and having arrived at a conclusion that it would not be possible to live together, they have decided to get their marriage dissolved by legal process. Therefore, they have filed this joint petition before this court.

7. The statutory period of six months was already completed. On 17.08.2021both the petitioners are examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and Ex.P1

Marriage certificate is marked. On enquiry both the petitioners have stated that they stick to their decision to get their marriage dissolved.

After going through the evidence of the petitioners and basing on the enquiry made by me in the court, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have taken decision voluntarily and their consent of the parties to the petition is free. Therefore, the petition is to be allowed.

8. In the result, this petition is allowed and the marriage between the first petitioner and second petitioner solemnized on 14.06.2012 is hereby dissolved on their mutual consent by granting a decree of divorce under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, and after corrections

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24 th day of August, 2021.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: SCJ, PEDDAPALLI.

Page 6/6

HMOP 116/2020

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Petitioner No.1For the Petitioner No.2

PW1 Dandigari Ravi KumarPW2 Bathula @ Dandigari Sudha Rani

Exhibits marked

For the Petitioner No.1

Ex.P1 is the marriage certificate.

For the Petitioner No.2

Nil

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: SCJ, PEDDAPALLI.

Order Record 188 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
H.M.O.P/28/2021	Pittala Lavanya @ Sharadha vs Pittala Ravi Kumar	26 Aug 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/28/2021	Pittala Lavanya @ Sharadha vs Pittala Ravi Kumar	24 Aug 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/102/2015	Gadam Ravi vs Gadam Anitha	24 Aug 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/116/2020	Dandigari Ravi Kumar vs Bathula @ Dandigari Sudha Rani	24 Aug 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/129/2019	Gadarla Rakesh vs Gadarla Ramya@Mothkuri Danalaxmi	24 Aug 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/30/2015	Gorla @ Gadam Anitha vs Gadam Ravi	17 Aug 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/70/2019	Rate Vasanth Kumar vs Rate Shylaja @ Manasa	17 Aug 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/106/2021	Panuganti Ravi kumar vs Panuganti @ Sothuku Lavanya	17 Aug 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/133/2020	Gurrala Ramadevi @ Theegala Ramadevi vs Gurrala Sadaiah	12 Aug 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/219/2018	Vundrala Sagar vs Vudrala Navya@ Srinavya	11 Aug 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/1/2021	Aida @ Penchala Sunitha vs Penchala Santhosh	10 Aug 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/65/2016	Miyapuram Venkateshwarlu vs Miyapuram Navitha	10 Aug 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/18/2021	Beerakayala Kalyan vs Beerakayala @ Boge Mamatha	04 Aug 2021	order	—
EP/52/2018	Katanguri Prameela vs The LAO, Peddapalli.	03 Aug 2021	order	—
EP/55/2012	KALVA RAVINDER REDDY vs LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CUM R.D.O, PEDDAPALLI	03 Aug 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/19/2019	Kyadasi Rajashekar vs Kyadasi Thulasi @ Sharada	03 Aug 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/21/2021	Pusala @ Kandukuri Snehajyothi vs Pusala Ramakrishna	03 Aug 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/77/2020	Senigarapu Jhansi @ Senigarapu Jimmeti Jhansi vs Senigarapu Vinaykanth	03 Aug 2021	order	—
OS/3/2021	Patlolla Prasanna vs Mandala Narayana Reddy	28 Jul 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/12/2021	Pentelli @ Kotte Padma vs Pentelli Nagaraju	28 Jul 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/13/2021	Tadi @ Koripelly Srilatha vs Tadi Sathish	28 Jul 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/88/2019	Uddemari Venkateshwarlu vs Uddemari Hair Sri Teja @ Ravali	28 Jul 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/23/2020	Arukonda Anusha @ Koyyada Anusha vs Arukonda Balakrishna	16 Jul 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/78/2020	Gunda Ramesh vs Gunda Anusha @ Bollu Anusha	16 Jul 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/96/2020	Naspuri Suresh vs Irugunuri @ Naspuri Rajitha	16 Jul 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/2/2021	Padala Kishan vs Padala @ Gopagoni Swapna	14 Jul 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/3/2021	Chinthakindi 2 Tanneeru Prasanna vs Tanneeru Ramesh	14 Jul 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/106/2019	Chukka Ramesh vs Chukka Mounika	14 Jul 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/82/2020	Satkuri @ Vemula Ravali vs Satkuri Sandeep	13 Jul 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/90/2020	Mukkera @ Gaddam Rajender vs Manda Mounika	13 Jul 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/95/2020	Edla Kumara swamy vs Edla @ Battu Vanaja	13 Jul 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/131/2020	Molumuri Shivakrishna vs Molumuri @ Chakinarapu Swathi	13 Jul 2021	order	—
AS/14/2019	Bonthala Rajeshwari vs The Special Deputy Collector,SCCL.	10 Jul 2021	other	—
OS/19/2018	Macharla Radha @ Radhamma vs Gurrala Shankar	10 Jul 2021	other	—
EP/28/2019	Oraganti Rajaiah vs The Land Acquisition Officer, SDC L.A. Unit,RTPS Ramagaundam	07 Jul 2021	order	—
OS/52/2015	Siddi Rayamallakka, vs Adepu Rajamogili	06 Jul 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/50/2021	Bondla Ramesh vs Bondla Manasa @ Sanganaboina Mallendra	06 Jul 2021	order	—
L.A.O.P/64/2014	MANDALA RAM REDDY vs THE SPL. DY. COLLECTOR, SRIPADA YELLAMPALLI PROJEC	06 Jul 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/8/2020	Mulkala Ganapathi @ Ganesh Reddy vs Suram Mounika @ Mulkala Mounika Reddy	01 Jul 2021	other	—
H.M.O.P/97/2020	Yellanki Madhukar Rao vs Yellanki madhuri	30 Jun 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/115/2019	Thanugula Sadvi vs Thungapindi Harikrishan	30 Jun 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/152/2019	Beeravelli Hari Kumar vs Beeravelli Srilatha	30 Jun 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/58/2020	Abboju Sagar vs Abboju Srilatha	29 Jun 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/81/2020	Palle @ Kolagani Swarupa vs Palle Sadanandam	29 Jun 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/136/2020	Merugu Srinivas vs Merugu Anuhitha @ Lahari	22 Jun 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/34/2020	Kamidi @ Gujjula Kalpana vs Kamidi Vishnuvardhan Reddy	17 Jun 2021	order	—
CMA/1/2020	The Superintending Engineer, 400 KV construction Circle 132/33 K.V. Premises, T.S Transco, Karimnag vs M/S Solar Industries India Ltd, R/by A.G.M. R.Sudhakar Kumar,	16 Jun 2021	order	—
OS/50/2015	MACHA AMANI vs THOTA RAJAIAH,	16 Jun 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/27/2021	Rasamalla Sheshu Kumar, vs Naspuri Vasantha,	10 Jun 2021	other	—
H.M.O.P/74/2019	Muthe Aravind vs Muthe @ Medam Srawani	10 Jun 2021	other	—
H.M.O.P/79/2020	Avula Srilatha @ Dadi Latha Sri vs Dadi Bhoomaiah	09 Jun 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/92/2020	Pillalamarri Nagesh Kumar vs Pillalamarri Swathi	09 Jun 2021	order	—
OS/41/2019	Thoorpati Jagan vs Thoorpati Sunitha	20 Apr 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/28/2019	Venavanka @ Ejjagiri Sandhya vs Venavanka Shravan	20 Apr 2021	order	—
OS/19/2016	Domakonda Mangaiah vs Dheeguntla Gurunatham	10 Apr 2021	other	—
OS/20/2017	Thatikonda @ Vemula Rajeshwari vs Thatikonda Chandramouli	10 Apr 2021	other	—
H.M.O.P/69/2020	Ramshetti Srinivas vs Ramshetti @ Dodla Sunitha	09 Apr 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/68/2020	Korukoppula Shruthi @ Kurma Shruthi vs Kurma Anvesh Goud	08 Apr 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/71/2020	Sunkari Pravalika vs Sunkari Srinivas	08 Apr 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/89/2020	Akkapaka Sagar vs Bonkuri @ Akkapaka Sahitya Rani	08 Apr 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/127/2020	Malyala Raghupathi vs Malyala Sumalatha	08 Apr 2021	order	—
EP/58/2018	M/s. Shriram Chits Pvt., Ltd., vs Dasari Laxmi and others.	07 Apr 2021	order	—
IP/1/2013	KANJERLA RAJESHWAR RAO vs SIDDURI SRINIVAS	07 Apr 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/34/2020	Mogulla Raju vs Mogulla Manjula	07 Apr 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/46/2020	Bairi Sai Kumar vs Bairi Sujatha @ Chippa Sujatha	07 Apr 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/51/2020	Madarapu Swetha vs Madarapu Swetha	07 Apr 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/52/2020	Bejjanki Rama Devi @ Chilumula Rama Devi vs Chilumula Rambabu	07 Apr 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/56/2020	Kasula kiran @ Kiranayya vs Bairi Rajitha @ Kasula Vasantha	07 Apr 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/74/2020	Narla Sathish vs Narla Jyothi	07 Apr 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/137/2020	Akula Sathish vs Baddipalli Rajeshwari @ Akula Vasantha	07 Apr 2021	order	—
AS/2/2015	AWARI RAGHAVENDRA vs KODARI HANUMAIAH,	06 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
EP/7/2019	Mohammad Javeed vs Mohammad Jahangir	06 Apr 2021	order	—
EP/48/2018	Kokkirala Srinivas vs Thaguram Rajam	06 Apr 2021	order	—
OS/35/2015	Banoth Koteshwar Nayak vs Vsjagati Publication pvt. Ltd.,	06 Apr 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/27/2020	Mutyala Venkatesh vs Mutyala Laxmi @ Chinnala Rajith	06 Apr 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/67/2017	Ravanavena Ravinder vs Ravanavena Priya@ Endla Swathi Priya	06 Apr 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/74/2020	Narla Sathish vs Narla Jyothi	06 Apr 2021	order	—
OS/177/2014	MARUPAKA RAJANANDAM vs PIKKALA KUMARA SWAMY	10 Mar 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/153/2019	Bakkala Anil vs Bakkala @ Pasuputi Durga	10 Mar 2021	order	—
EP/1/2020	Joginapalli Kamalakar Rao vs Janga Nagaraju	09 Mar 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/45/2020	Mankali @ Badugu Bindu Sri vs Mankali Praveen	09 Mar 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/88/2017	Kasalra Satyanarayana Reddy vs Kasarala @ Kollu Vani	09 Mar 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/133/2019	Thirukachi Srinivasa Swamy vs Thirukachi Srilatha	09 Mar 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/53/2020	Persavena Karthik vs Parsavena Priyanka	04 Mar 2021	order	—
AS/12/2017	Chinthala Devender Reddy vs The S.B.H. Manager Chandrashekar Bhatt	03 Mar 2021	order	—
OS/21/2019	Jakkani Hanamaiah vs Jakkani Umesh	03 Mar 2021	order	—
OS/78/2006	BANKA SATYANARAYANA vs KOLLIPARA RAJA BABU	03 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
OS/134/2011	THE STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD ADB RBY K.C. BHATT vs CHINTHALA DEVENDER REDDY	03 Mar 2021	order	—
OS/66/2009	Mekala Santhoshkumar vs Are Shankar	24 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
OS/67/2018	Chittimalla Shanker vs Gunda Veeresham	23 Feb 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/39/2020	Maragoni @ Macherla Ramadevi vs Maragoni Santhosh	23 Feb 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/40/2020	Indla @ Moola Sandhya vs Indla Ravi	23 Feb 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/41/2020	Vadlakonda Shravani vs Vadlakonda Raju	23 Feb 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/151/2017	Adicherla thirupathi vs Adicherla@ Janfgirala Sravanthi	23 Feb 2021	order	—
AS/6/2014	MUTHYAM RAMASWAMY vs KADARI SUGUNA	10 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
CMA/1/2015	Surumalla @ Chittuamalla Lachaiah, vs Gellu Chandrashkar	10 Feb 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/215/2019	Devaraneni Kiran Krishna vs Veeramaneni Kalyani	10 Feb 2021	order	—
AS/13/2018	Thakur Balaji Singh vs Kadaverla Kanakaiah and others	09 Feb 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/10/2020	Smt. Bashaveni Kavitha vs Sri. Bashaveni Sathish	09 Feb 2021	order	—
H.M.O.P/55/2019	Jabbala Rajamohan vs Veldhi Swapna	04 Feb 2021	order	—

Showing 100 of 188 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Aug 2021		18
Jul 2021		21
Jun 2021		13
Apr 2021		25
Mar 2021		11
Feb 2021		14
Jan 2021		10
Dec 2020		21
Nov 2020		15
Oct 2020		18
Sep 2020		23

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri K. Prasad handled?

Sri K. Prasad has handled 189 court orders since 2020 at Peddpalli - SCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 16 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri K. Prasad hear?

Based on available records, Sri K. Prasad primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Peddpalli - SCJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri K. Prasad currently posted?

Sri K. Prasad is posted as SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE at Peddpalli - SCJ Court Complex, Peddapalli, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri K. Prasad available online?

Yes. 7 judgments by Sri K. Prasad are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri K. Prasad dispose cases?

Sri K. Prasad disposes approximately 16 cases per month, based on 189 orders handled over their tenure at Peddpalli - SCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri K. Prasad serving?

Sri K. Prasad has been serving at Peddpalli - SCJ Court Complex since 2020.

Case Types

H 72%

OS 13%

EP 5%

AS 4%

CMA 3%

SC 1%

IP 1%

L 1%

Posting History

Aug 2020 — Aug 2021

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 156 orders
Aug 2020 — Aug 2021

Senior Civil Judge, Manthani · 33 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. N. Manjula

Junior Civil Judge

1,155 orders

Ms.v.bhavani

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

84 orders

← View all judges at Peddpalli - SCJ Court Complex

Sri K. Prasad

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANTHANI.

PRESENT: SRI.K.PRASAD,

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARIMNAGAR

:: JUDGMENT ::

Proof of execution of document required by law to

In Ammamuthu Ammal (died) and others v/s. Devaraj and

Sec.49: Effect of non­registration of documents required

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR

MANTHANI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR

MANTHANI

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT: K. PRASAD,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar

FAC: SCJ, Peddapalli.

KARIMNAGAR.

KARIMNAGAR.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT: K. PRASAD,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar

FAC: SCJ, Peddapalli.

:: O R D E R ::

KARIMNAGAR.

KARIMNAGAR.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT: K. PRASAD,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar

FAC: SCJ, Peddapalli.

:: O R D E R ::

KARIMNAGAR.

KARIMNAGAR.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT: K. PRASAD,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Karimnagar

FAC: SCJ, Peddapalli.

:: O R D E R ::

KARIMNAGAR.

KARIMNAGAR.

Sec.49: Effect of nonregistration of documents required