Sri K.Seetharamakrishna Rao

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur

VI Addl District Court, Markapur · Prakasham · Andhra Pradesh

Sri K.Seetharamakrishna Rao, Senior Civil Judge, Markapur, is posted at VI Addl District Court, Markapur, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,126 court orders on record since 2014. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, H cases.

2,126

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

SC/34/2017 Acquitted

Sub Inspector of Police, Komarole vs Pasupula Obulesu

27 Apr 2017

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :

MARKAPUR

Present:- Sri K. S. Rama Krishna Rao Assistant Sessions Judge

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

SESSIONS CASE No. 34/2017

(P.R.C.No. 05/17 of A.J.F.C.M. Court, Giddalur, Komarole police station in Cr.No. 89/2016 of Komarole P.S)

Complainant : State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarole P.S.

Description of the Accused :

Pasupula Obulesu s/o.Ramudu, aged about 36 years, SC Madiga by caste,

R/o.Thamballapalli village, Giddalur mandal,

Komarole police station Limits.

(Adhar No.660052482738)

Charges : U/ses. 307, 498-A IPC

Plea of the accused : Not guilty.

Finding of the Court : Not guilty

Sentence or Order :

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections U/ses. 307, 498-A of IPC and he is acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.The superintendent, Sub Jail,

Markapur is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

DATES OF

Occurrence : 20-12-2016

Complaint : 22-12-2016

Committal order : 07-02-2017

Appearance : 04-04-2017

Commencement of trial : 11-04-2017

Close of trial : 26-04-2017

Judgment : 27-04-2017 2

EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY:

In this case entire case record was received on 09.03.2017 from the Hon'ble District & Sessions Judge's Court, Ongole. Charges were framed on 06.04.2017 and summonses were issued to listed witnesses fixing schedule for trial. The prosecution side evidence commenced from 11-04.2017 and the same was closed on 26-04-2017. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. On 26.04.2017 the accused was not examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C, since there is no incriminating material and on the same day arguments were heard.

Judgment is pronounced on 27.04.2017. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-K.S.Rama Krishna Rao

Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur.

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :

MARKAPUR

Present:- Sri K. S. Rama Krishna Rao Assistant Sessions Judge

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

SESSIONS CASE No. 34/2017

(P.R.C.No. 05/17 of A.J.F.C.M. Court, Giddalur, Komarole police station in Cr.No. 89/2016 of Komarole P.S)

Complainant : State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarole P.S.

Description of the Accused :

Pasupula Obulesu s/o.Ramudu, aged about 36 years, SC Madiga by caste,

R/o.Thamballapalli village, Giddalur mandal,

Komarole police station Limits.

(Adhar No.660052482738)

Charges : U/ses. 307, 498-A IPC

Plea of the accused : Not guilty.

Finding of the Court : Not guilty

Sentence or Order :

Markapur is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor conducted the prosecution case for the state and Sri T.Veligondaiah, advocate defended the accused before the court.

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarole P.S filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under sections 307, 498-A of

IPC in Cr.No. 89/16 of Komarole Police Station.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the PW1 and the accused are wife and husband. The PW2 is their daughter. The accused used to harass the PW1. The accused addicted alcohol and ill-treated the

PW1 . On 20.12.2016 at about 7-30PM while PWs1 and 2 were in their house, the accused came in drunken state and started quarreling with

PW1. The accused chased the PW1 and laid her down and tried to pour poison mixed water into the mouth of PW1 with an intention to kill her.

The neighburs came and rescued the PW1. The PW1 was shifted government hospital. The LW11 Rangaiah, Head constable recorded the statement of PW1 and submitted to Komarole police. The LW12

Prabhakar Reddy, S.I of police registered a case in Cr.No.89/2016 under section 307 and 498-A of IPC. He recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and prepared observation report and rough sketch. On 25.12.2016 he arrested the accused and recorded the confessional statement in the presence of mediators. The accused was produced before the court. After completion of investigation LW12

Prabahakar Reddy, S.I of police filed charge sheet.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Giddalur has taken cognizance for the offences under sections 307, 498-A of IPC against the accused under P.R.C. 05/17. He furnished copies of documents to the accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Since the offence under section 307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Giddalur committed the case to court of Sessions, Ongole as required under section 209 of Cr.P.C which in turn numbered the case as S.C. No.

34/17 and made over the same to this court for disposal as per law.

5.The accused was produced before the court from Sub-Jail,

Markapur. He was examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C and charges under sections 307 and 498-A of IPC were framed against accused, explained to him in Telugu, he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.At the event of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. The learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of LW7 G.Innaiah, LW9 G.Alluraiah, LW10 Dr. K.Krishna Murthy

Naik, LW11 Rangaiah, Head constable and LW12 G.Prabhakar Reddy, S.I of police.

7.After closure of prosecution case, the accused was not examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C, since there is no incriminating material. The 5 accused reported no evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under sections 307, 498-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt”?

10.The case of the prosecution is that prior oto 20.12.2016 the accused ill-treated the PW1. On 20.12.2016 at about 7-30PM the accused tried to kill the PW1 by pouring poison mixed water into the mouth of PW1 with an intention to kill her. This court framed charges under sections 307, 498-A of IPC and the accused was put to trial.

11.The PW1 to PW6 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked.

The PW1 is wife of accused, PW2 is their daughter. The PW3 is mother of

PW1. The PWs4 to 6 are said to have acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Since all the witnesses turned hostile, the learned APP has given up the rest of the witnesses. Ex.P1 is signature of

PW1 on complaint, Exs.P2 to P6 are statements of PWs1 to 5 under section 161 of Cr.P.C. Exs.P7 and P8 are signatures of PW6 on scene observation report and confessional panchanama.

12.The evidence of PW1 shows that the accused is her husband and their marriage was taken place about 15 years ago. About 4 months ago her husband made small galata and she approached police. Police obtained her signature on written paper and she did not know its contents. She identified her signature on complaint which was marked as Ex.P1. The PW2 is daughter of PW1 and PW3 is mother of PW1. Their evidence shows that they did not know anything about the case. The

PW4 and PW5 are relatives of PW1 and they also did not support the prosecution case. The PW6 is mediator for scene observation report and confessional panchanama. He also did not support the prosecution case.

The learned APP declared PWs1 to 6 as hostile but nothing was elicited in favour of prosecution. Since the main witnesses turned hostile, the learned APP has given the rest of the witnesses. Since there is no material to answer charges, I am declined to believe the prosecution case.

13.In the light of my foregoing discussion, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections 307, 498-A of IPC and the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections U/ses. 307, 498-A of IPC and he is acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.The superintendent, Sub-Jail,

Markapur is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao

Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

Pw1/P. Sujatha -None-

Pw2/P.Dhanalakshmi Pw3/Gurram Shesamma Pw4/P.Yasodamma Pw5/P.Nagaraju Pw6/Ch.Prasada Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1/Complaint given to police. Ex.P2/161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1 Ex.P3/161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2 Ex.P4/161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3 Ex.P5/161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw4 Ex.P6/161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw5 Ex.P7/Signature on scene observation report Ex.P8/Signature on panchanama

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-- NIL --

Sd/-K.S.R.K.R

A S J.

Copies submitted to: -

1. The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Copies to:-

2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

4. The Addl. Judl. Magistrate of Ist Class, Giddalur

5. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Markapur.

6. Office copy.

OS/368/2014

D. Chinna Veeraiah vs Dandeboina Anjaneyulu

25 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present: Sri K. S. Rama Krishna Rao,

Senior Civil Judge

Tuesday, the 25th day of April, 2017

Original Suit No. 368/201 4

Dudipalli Chinna Veeraiah s/o.D.Lakshmi Narasaiah, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Resident of Gutlapalli village, Ummadivaram post, Tripuranthakam mandal, Prakasam District. …..Plaintif Vs.,

Dandeboina Anjaneyulu, s/o.Pedda Manneiah @ Manneiah, aged about 42 years, Business, Resident of G.Ummadivaram village, Tripuranthakam mandal,

Prakasam District. …..Defendant

This suit is coming on 03-04-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Sree Rami Reddy, advocate for plaintiff and of Sri P.Subrahmanyam, advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :- // J U D G M E N T //

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.1,17,114/- on the foot of four promissory notes dated 20.10.2011 for

Rs.10,000/-, dated 04.02.2012 for Rs.11,000/-, dated 08.02.2012 for Rs.40,000/- and dated 16.04.2012 for Rs.10,000/-.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed

Rs.10,000/- on 20.10.2011, Rs.11,000/- on 04.02.2012, Rs.40,000/- on 08.02.2012 and Rs.10,000/- on 16.04.2012 from plaintiff and executed four promissory notes agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Later the defendant failed to repay the same. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement stating that he did not borrow anything from plaintiff. The suit promissory notes are created documents. The plaintiff forged suit promissory notes due to previous land disputes. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim interest at the rate of 24% per annum as he is agriculturist.

The plaintiff filed two suits against his father. The plaintiff filed SC.12/2014 before this court.

4.Basing on rival contentions this court framed following issues.

1.Whether the suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

5.At the event of trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A4 and got examined PWs2 to 5. The defendant was examined as DW1.

6.Heard the arguments.

7.ISSUE Nos.1 and 2: Whether the suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant and whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed Rs.10,000/- on 20.10.2011, Rs.11,000/- on 04.02.2012, Rs.40,000/- on 08.02.2012 and

Rs.10,000/- on 16.04.2012 from him. The defendant filed written statement stating that the suit promissory notes are forged.

8.The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and he reiterated the main contents of plaint in his chief affidavit. Four promissory notes were marked as Exs.A1 to A4.

9.The attestors were examined as PWs2 to 5. Their evidence shows that the defendant borrowed Rs.10,000/- on 20.10.2011, Rs.11,000/- on 04.02.2012

Rs.40,000/- on 08.02.2012 and Rs.10,000/- on 16.04.2012.

10.The defendant was examined as DW1. According to him, he did not borrow any amount from PW1 and the suit promissory notes are forged.

11.The evidence of PWs1 to 5 categorically shows that the defendant borrowed

Rs.10,000/- on 20.10.2011, Rs.11,000/- on 04.02.2012 Rs.40,000/- on 08.02.2012 and Rs.10,000/- on 16.04.2012. The contents of Exs.A1 to A4 show the same. The

DW1 filed written statement stating that suit promissory notes are forged. The learned counsel for the DW1 cross-examined the PWs1 to 5 and put forth the contention of DW1 but they did not admit the same. The DW1 has taken the plea of forgery. When the DW1 has taken the plea of forgery, it is for the plaintiff to prove the transactions under Exs.A1 to A4. Attestors are right persons to speak about execution of documents. In the present case, the PWs2 to 5 are attestors and their evidence even after tested by cross-examination categorically proved that the DW1 borrowed amount and executed suit promissory notes. When the plaintiff proved the execution of suit promissory notes by examining attestors, it is for the DW1 to prove his stand of forgery. The defendant did not take steps to send the suit pronotes to expert examination. Except the oral evidence there is no material to prove the stand of forgery. On the other hand, the evidence of PWs1 to 5 coupled with Exs.A1 to A4 shows that the DW1 borrowed Rs.10,000/- on 20.10.2011, Rs.11,000/- on 04.02.2012, Rs.40,000/- on 08.02.2012 and

Rs.10,000/- on 16.04.2012 and failed to repay the same. The DW1 in his written statement stated that since he is agriculturist, the PW1 is not entitled to claim interest at the rate of 24% p.a. The PW1 in his cross examination admitted that the DW1 is agriculturist and doing cultivation. When it is proved that the DW1 is agriculturist, the PW1 is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% p.a as per the provisions of Act 4 of 1938. Therefore, I hold that the suit pronotes are true, valid, binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount under promissory notes with interest at the rate of 12%. Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

12. ISSUE No.3 To what relief?

In view of findings on issue Nos.1 and 2, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount under promissory notes with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the defendant. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

13.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and the defendant is directed to pay Rs.10,000/-, Rs.11,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and

Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of promissory notes respectively till the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the25 th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Markapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff on behalf of defendant

PW.1:D.Chinna Veeraiah. DW1:D.Anjaneyulu PW.2:N.Srinivasa Rao. PW.3:G.Venkata Subbaiah. PW.4:M.Tripuraiah. PW.5:N.Venkata Narayana.

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff on behalf of defendant

Ex.A1:Pronote dt. 20.10.2011 for Rs.10,000/- - Nil - Ex.A2:Pronote dt. 04.02.2012 for Rs.11,000/- Ex.A3:Pronote dt.08.02.2012 for Rs.40,000/- Ex.A4:Pronote dt.16.04.2012 for Rs.10,000/-

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao

S.C.J.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present: Sri K. S. Ramakrishna Rao,

Senior Civil Judge,Markapur

Tuesday, the 25th day of April, 2017

Original Suit No. 368/201 4

Dandeboina Anjaneyulu, s/o.Pedda Manneiah @ Manneiah, aged about 42 years, Business, Resident of G.Ummadivaram village, Tripuranthakam mandal,

Prakasam District. …..Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.1,17,114/- on the foot of four promissory notes dated 20.10.2011 for

Rs.10,000/-, dated 04.02.2012 for Rs.11,000/-, dated 08.02.2012 for Rs.40,000/- and dated 16.04.2012 for Rs.10,000/-.

Plaint presented on : 18.10.2014Plaint filed on : 12.11.2014

Cause of Action :

Cause of action for the suit arose when the suit promissory notes were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and failed to repay the amount at Gutlapalli village and Thripuranthakam mandal which is within the jurisdiction of this court. Valuation : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs.1,17,114/-, on which a court fee of Rs.6,414/- is paid u/sec.20 of APCF & SV Act. This suit is coming on 03-04-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Sree Rami Reddy, advocate for plaintiff and of Sri P.Subrahmanyam, advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

1.that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed ;

2.that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.11,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of promissory notes respectively till the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till realization; and

3.that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.11,929/- towards costs of the suit; Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 25 th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MARKAPUR

Table of Costs

For For S.No. Particulars Plaintifs Defendant

1.Stamp on Vakalat2-00

2.Stamp on Plaint6,414-00

3. Stamp on Process 100-00

4. Advocate fee(Senior)5,213-00 (CM & FC not filed)

5.Advocate fee (Junior)---

6.Writing charges100-00

7.Typing charges 100-00 Total11,929-00

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao

S.C.J.

OS/220/2015

Donapati Swarna Latha vs Garre Venkata Sreenivasrao

27 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present: Sri K. S. Rama Krishna Rao,

Senior Civil Judge

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

Original Suit No. 220/201 5

Donapati Swarnalatha w/o.Rajasekhar Reddy, aged about 34 years, Hindu, Properties Holder, Door No.8-17-164/5, Society colony, Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Giddalur village and mandal, Prakasam District. …..Plaintif Vs.,

1.Garre Venkata Sreenivasa Rao, (died) his legal heirs 2.Smt Garre Kumari, w/o.Late Venkata Srinivasa Rao, aged about 44 years, House wife, 3.Garre Hajarath Kumar @ Pedda Hajarath, s/o.Late Venkata Srinivasa Rao, aged about 24 years, Private employee, 4.Garre Rasool, s/o.Late Venkata Srinivasa Rao, aged about 22 years, Student.

5.Garre Hajarathaiah @ Chinna Hajarathaiah, s/o.Late Venkata Srinivasa Rao, aged about 19 years, Student, defendants 2 to 5 are Hindus, Resident of 7th Ward, Garrevari street, Giddalur village & mandal, Prakasam District.

(defendants 2 to 5 are added as legal heirs of 1st defendant as per orders in IA.203/2016,

dated 19.10.2016.) …..Defendants

This suit is coming on 20-04-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri I.Nageswara Rao, advocate for plaintiff and the defendants remained ex parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- // J U D G M E N T //

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs.10,28,000/- on the foot of two promissory notes dated 01.11.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/- and dated 13.11.2012 for Rs.4,00,000/-.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that G.Venkata Srinivasa

Rao borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- on 01.11.2012 and Rs.4,00,000/- on 13.11.2012 from plaintiff and executed two separate promissory notes agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., Later G.Venkata

Srinivasa Rao failed to repay the debt amount. The plaintiff got issued legal notice on 09.08.2014 to G.Venkata Srinivasa Rao. G.Venkata

Srinivasa Rao refused to take the notice. While the suit was in summons stage, the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed death memo of G.Venkata Srinivasa Rao. The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed

IA.203/2016 under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC and got impeaded

defendants 2 to 5.

3.The defendants 2 to 5 were set ex parte.

4.At the event of trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.

5.Heard the arguments of counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount?

7.The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and he reiterated the main contents of plaint in his chief affidavit. Promissory note dated 01.11.2012, promissory noted dated 13.11.2012, copy of legal notice, postal receipt and unserved postal cover and they were marked as

Exs.A1 to A5. Since the defendants 2 to 5 were set ex parte, the evidence of PW1 remained unquestioned. It shows that on 01.11.2011 and 13.11.2012, the PW1 lent Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- respectively to G.Venkata Srinivasa Rao. The contents of the Ex.A1 and A2, promissory notes show the same. The P.W1 further deposed that he got issued legal notice to G.Venkata Srinivasa Rao and he refused the same. He filed copy of legal notice, postal receipt and unserved postal cover which were marked as Exs.A3 to A5. During the pendency of the suit G.Venkata Srinivasa Rao died and his legal heirs were brought on record as defendants 2 to 5. They did not contest the suit and they were set ex parte. The evidence of PW1 shows that he lent Rs.2,00,000/- on 01.11.2012 and Rs.4,00,000/- on 13.11.2012 to

G.Venkata Srinivasa Rao. The defendants 2 to 5 being legal heirs of

G.Venkata Srinivasa Rao are liable to pay the debt to PW1 out of the properties of G.Venkata Srinivasa Rao devolved on them. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants 2 to 5. The point is answered accordingly.

8.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and the defendants 2 to 5 are jointly and severally directed to pay

Rs.10,28,000/- to the plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of suit to the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of decree till realization on principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- out of the properties of G.Venkata Srinivasa

Rao devolved on them.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the day 27 th of April, 2017.

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Markapur.

Witnesses examined

For plaintiffFor defendants

PW1:D.Swarnalatha Ex parte

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff on behalf of defendants

Ex.A1:Pronote dt.01.11.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/- - Nil - Ex.A2:Pronote dt.13.11.2012 for Rs.4,00,000/- Ex.A3:Copy of legal notice dt. 09.08.2011 Ex.A4:Postal receipt Ex.A5:unserved postal cover.

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao

S.C.J.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present: Sri K. S. Ramakrishna Rao,

Senior Civil Judge,Markapur

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

Original Suit No. 220/201 5

(defendants 2 to 5 are added as legal heirs of Late 1st defendant as per orders in IA.203/2016,

dated 19.10.2016.) …..Defendants

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs.10,28,000/- on the foot of two promissory notes dated 01.11.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/- and dated 13.11.2012 for Rs.4,00,000/-.

Plaint presented on : 17.11.2015Plaint filed on : 20.11.2015

Cause of Action :

Cause of action for the suit arose when the suit promissory notes were executed by the late 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff and failed to repay the amount at Giddalur village which is within the jurisdiction of this court. Valuation : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs.10,28,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.15,251/- is paid u/sec.20 of APCF & SV Act.

1.that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

2. that the defendants 2 to 5 are jointly and severally do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,28,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 17.11.2015 till the date of decree i.e., 27.04.2017 and thereafter future interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/-out of the properties of Late G.Venkata Srinivasa Rao devolved on them;

3.that the defendants 2 to 5 do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.34,073/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MARKAPUR.

Table of Costs

For For

S.No. Particulars Plaintif Defendants

(Ex parte)

1.Stamp on Vakalat2-00

2.Stamp on Plaint15,251-00

3. Stamp on Process 350-00

4. Advocate fee(Senior)16,270-00 (CM & FC not filed)

5.Publication charges (2)2,000-00

6.Writing charges100-00

7.Typing charges 100-00 Total34,073-00

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao

S.C.J.

OS/220/2015

Donapati Swarna Latha vs Garre Venkata Sreenivasrao

27 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present: Sri K. S. Rama Krishna Rao,

Senior Civil Judge

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

Original Suit No. 220/201 5

(defendants 2 to 5 are added as legal heirs of 1st defendant as per orders in IA.203/2016,

dated 19.10.2016.) …..Defendants

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that G.Venkata Srinivasa

Srinivasa Rao failed to repay the debt amount. The plaintiff got issued legal notice on 09.08.2014 to G.Venkata Srinivasa Rao. G.Venkata

IA.203/2016 under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC and got impeaded

defendants 2 to 5.

3.The defendants 2 to 5 were set ex parte.

4.At the event of trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.

5.Heard the arguments of counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount?

G.Venkata Srinivasa Rao. The defendants 2 to 5 being legal heirs of

8.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and the defendants 2 to 5 are jointly and severally directed to pay

Rao devolved on them.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the day 27 th of April, 2017.

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Markapur.

Witnesses examined

For plaintiffFor defendants

PW1:D.Swarnalatha Ex parte

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff on behalf of defendants

Ex.A1:Pronote dt.01.11.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/- - Nil - Ex.A2:Pronote dt.13.11.2012 for Rs.4,00,000/- Ex.A3:Copy of legal notice dt. 09.08.2011 Ex.A4:Postal receipt Ex.A5:unserved postal cover.

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao

S.C.J.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present: Sri K. S. Ramakrishna Rao,

Senior Civil Judge,Markapur

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

Original Suit No. 220/201 5

(defendants 2 to 5 are added as legal heirs of Late 1st defendant as per orders in IA.203/2016,

dated 19.10.2016.) …..Defendants

Plaint presented on : 17.11.2015Plaint filed on : 20.11.2015

Cause of Action :

1.that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

3.that the defendants 2 to 5 do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.34,073/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MARKAPUR.

Table of Costs

For For

S.No. Particulars Plaintif Defendants

(Ex parte)

1.Stamp on Vakalat2-00

2.Stamp on Plaint15,251-00

3. Stamp on Process 350-00

4. Advocate fee(Senior)16,270-00 (CM & FC not filed)

5.Publication charges (2)2,000-00

6.Writing charges100-00

7.Typing charges 100-00 Total34,073-00

Sd/- K.S.Rama Krishna Rao

S.C.J.

OS/117/2016

Kanchupati Veera Nagaiah vs Beralla Samuel

24 Apr 2017

Order Record 1,916 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/49/2013	Putta Guravamma vs Paras thirupataiah died His L.Rs add	28 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/157/2015	Thokala Pedda Venkata Raju vs Bathula Venkateswarlu	27 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/220/2015	Donapati Swarna Latha vs Garre Venkata Sreenivasrao	27 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
SC/34/2017	Sub Inspector of Police, Komarole vs Pasupula Obulesu	27 Apr 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
H.M.O.P/22/2016	Mutukula Koteswara Rao vs Mutukula Mangala Gowri alias Saroja	27 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/167/2015	Irugula Samba Siva Reddy vs Chaparala John Suresh Babu	26 Apr 2017	Order	—
S.O.P/2/2017	Nallabothula Kannakaiah vs Vs	26 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/368/2014	D. Chinna Veeraiah vs Dandeboina Anjaneyulu	25 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/28/2017	Dandeboina Rajamma vs Dandeboina Ramesh	25 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/117/2016	Kanchupati Veera Nagaiah vs Beralla Samuel	24 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/115/2016	Telagathoti Deepthi vs Telagathoti Koteswara Rao	24 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/52/2013	Illuri Mahalakshmi Alias Mahalakshamma vs Illuri Venkata Rami Reddy	21 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/189/2014	Jaajam Venkateswarlu vs Gollakaram Maruthi Kumari	21 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/336/2014	Bathula Subbaiah vs Orsu Venkataiah	21 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/66/2016	Kalakota Hemanth Kumar Reddy vs Kalakota Sri Devi	21 Apr 2017	Order	—
S.O.P/1/2017	Derangula Kasi Lakshmi vs Nil	21 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/193/2015	Immadisetty Venkata Subbarao vs T.Siva Rup Kumar	20 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/24/2017	Yeruva Siva Reddy vs Smt. Chakka Jayaprada	20 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/25/2017	Yeruva Sia Reddy vs Smt Chakka Jayaprada	20 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
SCC/1/2017	Godendla Sri Ramulu vs Bandaru Ranga Devi	17 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/117/2015	Gurram Subba Rao vs Chakka Suresh Kumar	13 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
SC/409/2014	The Sub-inspector of police, Markapur Town P.S. vs Regalagadda Thirupathaiah alias Thirupathi	13 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/33/2015	Bidare Lakshmi Sharada vs Aripirala Kiran Kumar Sarma	13 Apr 2017	Order	—
IP/30/2014	Maganti Poornachandra Rao vs Maddineni Nagendram	12 Apr 2017	Order	—
H.M.O.P/137/2016	Annapureddy Chaithanya vs Annapureddy Prathap Reddy	12 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/78/2005	Varikuti Lakshmi Kumari vs Vari Kuti malles wara rao	11 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/116/2014	Perla Chalama Rao vs Devandla Nasaraiah	10 Apr 2017	Order	—
SC/100045/2015	SHO Giddalur PSs vs Shaik Rasool	10 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/3/2017	Gudipati Naga Venkata Sailaja vs Garre Nagendra Praveen Kumar	10 Apr 2017	Order	—
H.M.O.P/69/2014	Mukka Chinna Venkateswarlu vs Mukka Avulakka	10 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/189/2015	Mula Thirupatha Reddy vs Sk. Nagur Saheb	07 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
EP/56/2015	Sidhabathini Rama Rao vs Syed Nayab Rsool died	06 Apr 2017	Order	—
SC/162/2016	S.H.O,Dornala P.S vs Darsanam Nagaiah	06 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/119/2016	Botchu Srinivasa Reddy vs Botchu Ravana	06 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/2/2016	Jakka Lakshmi Narayan vs Thodati Rangaiah	04 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/145/2014	K.Ammaji vs Nakka Varada Raju	04 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
SC/128/2016	State Sub-Inspector of Police, Markapur Rural P.S vs Thammineni Srinivasa Reddy	04 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
SC/242/2016	State Sub Inspector of Police,Markapur Rural P.S vs Naru Rama Krishna Reddy	04 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
EP/63/2015	Sagam reddy Peda KOnda reddy vs Boddu KOnda reddy	03 Apr 2017	Order	—
H.M.O.P/124/2016	Borra Venkata Ramanamma vs Borra Venkateswara Reddy	03 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/22/2009	Bhupathiraju Harinath Raju vs Gutta Joseph Satish babu	31 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
EP/39/2015	Kolla Chalamaiah vs Atluri Raja Rao	27 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/106/2014	Yeruva Parvathi vs Shaik Imam Saheb	24 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/158/2014	Syndicate Bank, Markapur vs Golamaru Venkata Lakshamma	24 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
SC/396/2014	The Sub-Inspector of POlice, Peddaraveedu P.S. vs Guddepogu Samuel	24 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/201/2010	Gurijala Krishnaveni vs Chandaluri Satyanarayana Reddy	23 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/2/2017	Kuraku Sowjanya vs Kuraku Ravindra Kumar	21 Mar 2017	Order	—
H.M.O.P/104/2016	Chakali Shilpa@Lakshmi Jaya vs Chakali Mahesh Babu	21 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/96/2016	Sure Subbarayudu vs Pesala Rangamma	17 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/157/2014	Syndicate Bank, Markapur vs Gurajala Lakshmi Reddy	17 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
SC/292/2016	State Sub-Inspector of Police, Markapur Rural P.S vs Naguluri Chinna Rosaiah@Rosaiah	17 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
SC/293/2016	State Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddaraveedu P.S vs Naguluri Chinna Rosaiah@Rosaiah	17 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/28/2016	Vaddamanu Ramanjaneyulu vs Vaddamanu Leelavathi	17 Mar 2017	Order	—
SC/34/2014	SHO Giddalur PS vs Seelam Anki Reddy	16 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/130/2016	Avula Krishnaveni vs Avula Nagendra	16 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/114/2014	Kolla Chalamaiah vs Dodda Srinivasulu	15 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
SCC/7/2016	Katikala Ramaiah vs Kodavakanti Rajaiah	15 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/127/2016	Sanikommu Anji Reddy vs Sanikommu Lakshmi	15 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/286/2014	Immadi Srinivasulu vs Virnati Seshaiah	14 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
SC/16/2015	The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pullacheruvu P.S. vs Kypu subba reddy	14 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
EP/136/2014	Ramayanapu Subbrayudu vs Pasupuleti Venkata Ramana	10 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/138/2015	Posam Venkata Krishna Rao vs Avadanam Vijaya Bhaskar	10 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/303/2014	Syndicate Bnak, Markapur vs Dondeti Thirupathi reddy	10 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/134/2015	Cheethirala Venkata Subbaiah vs Yaganti Bala Kotaiah	09 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100/2016	Yalamamanchi Dilip Kumar vs Yallamanchi Venkataiah	08 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/15/2016	Panyam Khaja Babu vs Panyam Lavanya	08 Mar 2017	Order	—
H.M.O.P/129/2016	Kolli Rajamma vs Kolli Kondalu@Sullaiah	08 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/102/2014	Munganuri Kalyani vs Garre Venkata Srinivasa Rao	07 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/39/2016	Patan Husain Khan vs Sk. Karim Basha	06 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/175/2015	Guntaka Velugonda Reddy vs Jagannati Rama Rao	06 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/65/2014	Grandisila Chinna Subba Lakshmaiah vs Peravali Raja Sekhar Babu	06 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/200/2014	Chief Manager,Syndicate Bank, Markapur vs Dondeti Tirupathi Reddy	06 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/71/2015	Turaka Bala Venkataiah vs Turaka Guruthra	06 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/184/2010	Gadivemula Shaik Vazeer Ahammad vs Guddeti Kotaiah	03 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/102/2016	Yenumula Ranganadh vs Yenumula Rangalakshmi	03 Mar 2017	Order	—
H.M.O.P/103/2016	Dumavath Venkatesh Naik vs Dumavath Lakshmi Bai	03 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/298/2014	Grandisila Suresh Babu vs Tadikamalla Bala Subba Rao	02 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
SC/411/2014	The Sub-Inspector of POlice,PUllacheruvu P.S. vs Desavath Vilay Naik	02 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/131/2016	Ramineni Narasimha Rao vs Ramineni Rama Devi	02 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/118/2013	Kapil Chit Funds, Markapur vs Golamari Mahanandeswara Reddy	01 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/129/2015	Shaniga Bala Raju vs Chandragiri Chandra Sekhar	01 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/193/2015	State Bank of India, Thripuranthakam Branch vs Alavala Subbaiah	01 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/223/2015	Branch Manager,S.B.I,Pullalacheruvu. vs Annapureddy Venkata Koti Reddy	01 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/4/2015	Kypu Subba Reddy vs Kypu Eswaramma	01 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/10/2016	Jakka Lakshmi Surya Parakasa Rao vs Jakka Lakshmi Devi	28 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
EP/61/2016	Vitta Subbaratnam vs Gunipati Eswar Reddy	27 Feb 2017	Order	—
IP/18/2013	Modala Venkata Subramanyam vs Bonthala Madhu	27 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/54/2015	Kuricheti Ranga Lakshmi vs Shaik Kareem Basha	27 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/155/2014	Syndicate Bank, Markapur vs Kasaraneni Raghuveer	27 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
SC/350/2014	The Sub-Inspector of POlice, Giddalur vs Mendragurthi Suresh	27 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/9/2015	Devarakonda Durga @ Durga Devi vs Devarakonda Mallikarjuna	27 Feb 2017	Order	—
H.M.O.P/21/2014	Devarakonda Mallikharjuna vs Devarakonda Durga	27 Feb 2017	Order	—
H.M.O.P/140/2016	Mattam Lakshmi vs Mattam Venkateswarlu	23 Feb 2017	Order	—
IP/11/2014	Thuraka Venkateswarlu vs Thammisetty Prasad	22 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/142/2015	Mukkamala Janardhana reddy vs Kandukuri Sankara chari	22 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/67/2007	Chinnapureddy Venkata Reddy vs The District Collector	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/82/2014	Padarthi Shankar vs Padarthi Ramesh	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/108/2012	Pattan Hussain Khan vs Shaik Nasar vali	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/326/2014	Maramreddy Mahanandi reddy vs Maramreddy Venkata Reddy	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/46/2014	Sankula Raj Kumar vs Sankula Ramalakshmi	20 Feb 2017	Order	—

Showing 100 of 1,916 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2017		44
Mar 2017		44
Feb 2017		45
Jan 2017		42
Dec 2016		50
Nov 2016		69
Oct 2016		57
Sep 2016		32
Aug 2016		41
Jul 2016		132
Jun 2016		42
May 2016		4

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri K.Seetharamakrishna Rao handled?

Sri K.Seetharamakrishna Rao has handled 2126 court orders since 2014 at VI Addl District Court, Markapur. The average disposal rate is 57 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri K.Seetharamakrishna Rao hear?

Based on available records, Sri K.Seetharamakrishna Rao primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, SCC) at VI Addl District Court, Markapur.

Where is Sri K.Seetharamakrishna Rao currently posted?

Sri K.Seetharamakrishna Rao is posted as Senior Civil Judge, Markapur at VI Addl District Court, Markapur, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri K.Seetharamakrishna Rao available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri K.Seetharamakrishna Rao are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri K.Seetharamakrishna Rao dispose cases?

Sri K.Seetharamakrishna Rao disposes approximately 57 cases per month, based on 2126 orders handled over their tenure at VI Addl District Court, Markapur.

Since when is Sri K.Seetharamakrishna Rao serving?

Sri K.Seetharamakrishna Rao has been serving at VI Addl District Court, Markapur since 2014.

Case Types

OS 41%

EP 23%

H 20%

SC 9%

IP 4%

SCC 2%

S 2%

L 0%

Posting History

Mar 2014 — May 2017

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur · 2,126 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. Velpula Bhavani

VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Markapur

0 orders

Sri B.Devendra Reddy

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur

2,031 orders

Sri M.Balaji

Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Markapur

1,939 orders

Sri J.Kishore Kumar

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur

1,610 orders

← View all judges at VI Addl District Court, Markapur