Smt L.Devi Ratna Kumari

I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division)

PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM · Vizianagaram · Andhra Pradesh

Smt L.Devi Ratna Kumari, I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), is posted at PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh, India. 12,287 court orders on record since 2022. 25 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, OS cases.

12,287

Total Orders

Judgments

341

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/88/2016

N.V. Chalamaji vs Ms. Srinivasa Corporation

16 Apr 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-

CUM-, ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST

CLASS, VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Smt.B.Ramya, I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Vizianagaram

Wednesday, this the 16th day of April, 2025

O.S.No.88 OF 2016

Between: N.V.Chalamaji, S/o late Venkata Ramanayya, Aged 67 years, R/at Door No.4-8-68, Kothagraharam, Vizianagaram Town and District. ….Plaintiff

AND M/s Srinivasa Corporation, represented by its Proprietor Sri Pekati Parameswara Rao, S/o late Appala Sitarama Murthy, Aged 54 years, R/o D.No.8-1-46, M.G.Road, Vizianagaram Town and District. …Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 07.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.K.Raj Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri K.V.N.Thammanna Setty, and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, till this day, this Court delivered the the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant

(a) directing the defendant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the plaint schedule shop to the plaintiff and in case, if the defendnat fails to do so, the Court keep the plaintiff in 2 vacant possession of the plaint schedule shop by getting the defendant evicted from it under due process of law; (b) directing the defendnat to pay the damages of Rs.20,000/- towards un- authorized use and occupation of the plaint schedule shop from the month of October, 2014 to January, 2015 i.e., Rs.5,000/- per month together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to the date of realization; (c) directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month towards damages for the un-authorized use and occupation of the plaint schedule shop from the date of filing of suit to till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the planit schedule shop to the plaintiff and costs thereof.

2.The averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the ground floor 'B' shop room in building bearing Door No.8-1-46, situated at Vizianagaram, more fully described in the schedule annexed. The said premises was let out to the defendant on 31-10-2010 for a lease period of 48 months.

The agreed rent was Rs.17,000/- per month for the first 12 months, and Rs.19,550/- per month thereafter (from 01-11-2011 to 3 31-10-2014), with an express condition to vacate upon expiry of the lease period. A registered lease deed was executed by both parties vide Regd. No. 4648/2010, and possession was delivered to the defendant. The plaintiff, being aged along with his wife, wishes to live with his third son N.V. Ramyya, who agreed to take care of them. To secure their welfare, the plaintiff intends to start a gold business with his son in the suit premises, as the locality is suitable for such trade. The plaintiff waited until expiry of the lease to avoid inconvenience to the defendant and orally informed the defendant before and after 31-10-2014 that the lease would not be extended and requested vacation of the premises. Despite this, the defendant failed to vacate the premises. The plaintiff sent a letter dated 01-12-2014 reiterating his need for the shop and requesting the defendant to vacate. The defendant acknowledged the same and sought three months’ time, to which the plaintiff agreed, allowing continued occupation till January 2015 at the existing rent.

2.1It is further submitted that the defendant sent a letter

dated 11-12-2014 enclosing a cheque for Rs.40,470/- towards rent

4 for October and November 2014 at a rate of Rs.20,235/- per month, unilaterally deducting TDS and claiming a new rent agreement violating the original lease terms. The plaintiff returned the cheque with a letter dated 22-12-2014 and again demanded vacation. Despite this, the defendant sent another cheque for

Rs.20,235/- along with a legal notice dated 12-01-2015. The plaintiff, through his advocate, returned the cheque and denied all claims in his reply notice dated 22-01-2015, which was duly acknowledged by the defendant. Upon further requests and negotiations, the plaintiff agreed to extend the time for vacation until 01-10-2015 on the condition that monthly rent of Rs.20,235/- would be paid and that the defendant would vacate without fail.

The defendant accepted this condition but again failed to comply.

The plaintiff issued a final legal notice on 14-09-2015 demanding delivery of possession by 01-10-2015. The defendant, instead of complying, sent a reply dated 21-09-2015 making false claims about a so-called compromise involving mediators and alleging renewal of lease. The plaintiff denied these allegations and clarified the position in his registered reply dated 20-01-2016. The plaintiff 5 states that the defendant has been causing damage to the shop premises, amounting to acts of waste. The continued unauthorized occupation of the premises post 01-10-2015 is illegal, and the defendant is liable to pay damages. Considering the commercial nature of the premises, the plaintiff claims Rs.5,000/- per month as damages from October 2014 till the date of suit (Rs.20,000/- in total), with interest at 24% per annum. The plaintiff further submits that due to the rise in commercial property values and rents in the area, he is entitled to future damages at Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit until recovery of possession. Hence, the plaint.

3.The learned Counsel for the defendant filed written statement denying the plaint avements and further contended that he was inducted as a tenant into the suit schedule shop under a registered lease deed dated 31-10-2010 and had been regularly paying rent to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff avoided receiving rent for October and November 2014, the defendant sent banker's cheques after deducting TDS, which were returned by the plaintiff along with reply letters containing false and untenable allegations.

Despite these issues, a compromise was later arrived in March 2015 through the intervention of well-wishers, under which the plaintiff agreed to continue the defendant’s tenancy for a further period of 48 months from March 2015. Accordingly, the defendant deposited arrears and continued paying monthly rent at the enhanced rate into the plaintiff’s bank account, which clearly indicates the plaintiff’s acceptance of the extended tenancy. The defendant further contends that the plaintiff has taken contradictory and inconsistent stands by alternatively claiming that the defendant is a licensee and a tenant, thereby casting serious doubt over the maintainability of the suit. The plaintiff, with malafide intention, filed the present suit only to evict the defendant through unlawful means, despite having agreed to the continuation of the tenancy.

Since the agreed period of 48 months would only expire in March 2019, the suit filed prior to that date is premature and devoid of any legal basis. He further contended that the notice issued under

Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is invalid as it failed to provide the mandatory 15 days' clear notice from the date of service. The notice dated 14-09-2015 required the defendant to 7 vacate by 01-10-2015, but it was only served on 17-10-2015, rendering it legally ineffective. The defendant also denies being an unauthorized occupant and disputes the claim for damages at

Rs.20,000/- per month with 24% interest as highly excessive and unjustified. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed. It thus, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of palint schedule property after vacating the defendant as prayed for?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, to prove their respective cases, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked

Exs.A.1 to A.10 on his behalf. On the other hand, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.14 and one Sri Battula Prakash, who is the 3rd party to the suit is examined as D.W.2.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant. Perused the material available on record.

7.To shore up his contention, the plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of examination- in- chief by asserting all material averments of the plaintiff. The affidavit of the plaintiff is nothing but replica of the plaint and it was elicited in the cross-examination PW.1 admitted that the suit schedule shop was originally leased to the defendant under a registered lease deed dated 31-10-2010 and acknowledged the lease amount and its periodic enhancement. He stated that the original lease deed is in the custody of the defendant but did not mention this in his chief affidavit. Though

Ex.A.1 refers to the plaintiff as "licensor" and defendant as "licensee", he confirmed that the agreement was signed by both parties with full knowledge of its contents. He admitted that the defendant paid rent in cash till October 2014 and later through cheques. He also acknowledged that the defendant is presently depositing monthly rent of Rs. 20,250/- into his bank account at

State Bank, Bazar Branch (A/c ending 4069), and there are no 9 arrears of rent as of the last month. P.W.1 further stated that PW.1 claimed not to remember if he provided his bank account details to the defendant, yet admitted to the receipt of rent in that account after rent enhancement. He denied knowing one of the mediators,

Battula Prakash, but admitted that the other mediator, Sri N.V.

Ramji, is his distant relative. He further admitted that no formal notice of cancellation of license was issued and could not confirm whether acknowledgment of the legal notice (Ex.A.6) was filed in court. He accepted that the suit may not be maintainable if the lease period had not lapsed and that the mandatory notice under law may not have been properly issued. He also acknowledged that his third son is not involved in the gold business, and offered to produce his son's evidence if required. Overall, the testimony of

PW.1 supports the existence of a valid tenancy, regular rent payments.

8.To shore up his contention, the defendant filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief by asserting all material averments of the defendant. The affidavit of the defendant is nothing but replica of the written statement and it was elicited in 10 the cross-examination, D.W.1 admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property and that he initially took the property on lease under a registered deed dated 31.10.2010 for a period of four years, which expired on 31.10.2014. He acknowledged receiving a letter from the plaintiff dated 01.12.2014 (Ex.A.2) asking him to vacate the property and also admitted that he sent rent twice via cheque, which was refused by the plaintiff.

D.W.1 further admitted, it was not mentioned in his chief affidavit or in his written statement that the lease period was extended for four years. D.W.1 further admitted that, he has no documentary proof to show that the lease was orally extended for a further period of four years through a panchayat held at the house of

Balabadruni Narasimharao, in the presence of elders including

N.V.Ramakrishna and Battula Prakash and also no written settlement of the said mediation, and that the place and details of the panchayat were not mentioned in his written statement or reply notice. DW.1 stated that he paid the enhanced rent after the alleged oral extension but denied depositing rent into the plaintiff's bank account, contradicting earlier claims. He admitted the 11 existence of adjacent shops, including a gold shop smaller than the plaint schedule property, and acknowledged that there are several paint shops in the vicinity, including his own business "Srinivasa

Corporation" located in Chinnaveedhi. He also admitted that the plaintiff informed him to vacate the plaint schedule property by way of letter dt.01.12.2024 in Ex.A.2 and he depositing the rent in court as the plaintiff refused to accept it, and that in Ex.A.9 the plaintiff agreed to receive rent without prejudice to his rights.

Though DW.1 firmly denied the suggestions that he is an unauthorized occupant or liable to pay damages, he also conceded that neither his chief affidavit nor written statement specifically mentions the four-year oral extension. He denied suggestions that he is falsely claiming an extension to avoid eviction and reiterated that the plaintiff had in fact agreed to continue the tenancy for another four years for the conduct of his business. Moreover,

D.W.1 admitted that, he renovated his house and opened a paint shop under the name and style of Srinivasa Corporation.

9.One Sri Battula Prakas, who is the 3rd party to the suit is examined as D.W.2, he deposed that he is well acquainted 12 with both the plaintiff and the defendant. He stated that the defendant has been a tenant of the plaint schedule shop room since 2010. In February 2015, disputes arose between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the extension of the lease, and both parties approached him and one Sri Nagulakonda Venkata Rama

Krishna to mediate the matter. After detailed discussions, a compromise was reached wherein the plaintiff agreed to continue the tenancy for a further period of four years commencing from

March 2015. As part of the compromise, the plaintiff provided his bank account details to the defendant and instructed him to deposit the monthly rent into the said account. DW.2 further stated that the defendant later informed him that he was regularly depositing rent in the plaintiff’s account as per the agreed terms.

During the cross-examination, D.W.2 stated that the lease deed was registered in March 2015 with an agreed rent of ₹17,500/- per month for a period of four years. He admitted he does not know the exact dates of the exchange of legal notices between the parties or their contents. He reiterated that the plaintiff and defendant came to his house in February 2015 for oral 13 negotiations, during which they resolved their dispute. However, he was unaware whether the lease was first extended for 3 months and then for 9 months. DW.2 stated that he has known the defendant since childhood as his classmate and knows the plaintiff, though they are not related. He acknowledged that the defendant constructed a building in Chinna Veedhi, Vizianagaram and runs a paint shop there. He also admitted that Chinna Veedhi has many paint and jewellery shops.

Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property after vacating the defendant as prayed for?

10.The plaintiff has instituted the present suit on the basis of ownership and landlordship over the plaint schedule property, i.e., a shop room bearing Door No.8-1-46 situated at

Vizianagaram. The plaintiff has asserted that the defendant was inducted into possession of the said shop room under a registered lease deed dated 31-10-2010 (Ex.A.1), for a period of four years.

Upon expiration of the lease period on 31-10-2014, the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the shop by issuing letters dated 14 01-12-2014 (Ex.A.2), 11-12-2014 (Ex.A.3), and 22-12-2014 (Ex.A.4), followed by advocate notices dated 22-01-2015 (Ex.A.5) and 14-09- 2015 (Ex.A.6).

11.The defendant, on the other hand, while admitting the initial lease, contends that the tenancy was orally extended for a further period of 48 months from March 2015, pursuant to a compromise allegedly arrived at through mediation by two well- wishers, namely Sri Battula Prakash and Sri N.V. Ramakrishna

Ramji. However, no documentary evidence has been filed to substantiate the oral extension of tenancy. DW.1 (Defendant) in his cross-examination admitted that no written renewal or registered lease deed was executed after the expiry of Ex.A.1 and that the alleged mediation did not result in a written agreement. Further,

DW.2, though examined to support the version of oral extension, also admitted during cross-examination that he was not aware of the lease terms and did not possess personal knowledge of the actual execution of any agreement.

12.The plaintiff, during his deposition, categorically denied having agreed to any renewal and denied that any 15 settlement or mediation concluded with an extension of tenancy.

While it is shown by the defendant that rent was paid post-

February 2015 and deposited into the plaintiff’s bank account, such payments alone do not amount to automatic renewal of tenancy for a further period of four years. Acceptance of rent after termination of lease is a common phenomenon in landlord-tenant disputes and does not, by itself, create a fresh tenancy unless the intention to renew is unambiguously established through legally enforceable terms.

13.Moreover, Ex.A.1 clearly stipulates that any renewal of lease shall only be effected upon mutual consent and by execution of a fresh agreement. No such written agreement has been executed, and the plaintiff has repeatedly demanded that the defendant vacate the premises post-expiry. The existence of a continuing tenancy has not been proved as per law. Oral agreements, even if assumed, cannot override the written registered lease agreement, especially when possession was originally taken under a registered deed and not renewed in the manner provided therein. Moreover, the plaitiff main submission is that he is aged 16 about 73 years and his wife became older and he want to keep his third son N.V.Ramayya, with him, to look after their welfare in old age and they wants to establish gold business with his son in the said plaint schedule shop, which is the bonafide requirement of the plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant he himself admitted he renovate his house and opened his own paint shop under the name and style of Srinivasa Corporation.

The learned Counsel for the plaintiff relied in between

Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Md.Ehshan and Others reported in SLP (C)

No.21965 of 2022 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is squarely applicable to the present set of facts on hand.

The learned Counsel for the defendant relied in between N.Prabhakar Rao v. J.R.Ramesh Kumar @ Rameshji reported in [2001 (6) ALT 38 (SC)] the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India and in between S.J.Ebenezer v. Velayudhan and Others reported in [1998 (0) AIR (SC) 746] the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are squarely not applicable to the present set of facts of the case.

14.Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the lease stood terminated on 31-10-2014 and that the defendant, post-termination, became an unauthorized occupant. The plaintiff, being the owner and erstwhile landlord, is entitled to recover possession of the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed for?

15.The plaintiff claims damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month with interest @ 24% per annum from 01-11-2014 till the date of recovery of possession. It is not in dispute that the defendant continued in possession even after the expiry of the lease period on 31-10-2014. Though the defendant has taken the plea of oral extension, the same, as held above, has not been established. Therefore, the defendant’s continued possession after 01-11-2014 is without lawful authority.

16.Once the lease expires and the tenant fails to vacate, the occupation becomes wrongful and unauthorized, entitling the owner to claim mesne profits or damages. In this case, although 18 the plaintiff claims damages of Rs.20,000/- per month, no documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate the prevailing market rent or fair rental value. However, during cross- examination, the plaintiff deposed that an adjacent smaller shop was given on rent to a goldsmith in 2016 for Rs.6,000/- per month, and another shop was rented to a jewellery business for

Rs.10,000/- per month in 2010. P.W.1 he himself admitted that, there is no due of arrears of the rent and defendnat is depositing the rent on every month for Rs.20,250/- into his accosunt and defendant also filed Exs.B.7 to B.14 to show that he is depositing the rent regulary every month sicne 2016 to 2023 the plaint schedule property is larger in area, and considering escalation of rental values over the years, a reasonable monthly damage of

Rs.5,000/- per month is deemed appropriate from 01-11-2014 onwards till delivery of possession.

17.As regards the claim for interest @ 24% per annum, the same appears excessive and exorbitant. The Court considers it reasonable to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the arrears of damages from the date of filing of the suit till the date 19 of realization. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to damages at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from 01-11-2014 till delivery of possession and interest @ 9% per annum on the arrears from the date of suit till realization.

Issue No.3: To what relief?

18.In view of the findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of eviction and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is also entitled to damages for use and occupation at the rate of

Rs.5,000/- per month from 01-11-2014 till the date the defendant vacates or is evicted from the property, along with interest @ 6% per annum on the accumulated arrears from the date of filing of the suit till realization. The plaintiff is further entitled to costs of the suit.

19.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs and directing the defendant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the plaint schedule shop to the plaintiff and in case, if the defendnat fails to do so, the Court keep the plaintiff in 20 vacant possession of the plaint schedule shop by getting the defendant evicted from it under due process of law.

Further, directing the defendnat to pay the damages for un-authorized use and occupation of the plaint schedule shop from the month of October, 2014 to January, 2015 i.e., Rs.5,000/- per month together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to the date of realization.

Further, directing the defendant to pay an amount of

Rs.5,000/- per month towards damages for the un-authorized use and occupation of the plaint schedule shop from the date of filing of suit to till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the planit schedule shop to the plaintiff and costs thereof.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16th day of April, 2025. Sd/B.Ramya I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Vizianagaram

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: N.Venkata Chalamaji D.W.1: P.Parameswara Rao

D.W.2: B.Prakash 21

Exhibits Marked For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 Copy of adangal obtained from Village Secretariat for Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property dt.18.04.2023.

Ex.A.1: Original Registered Lease Deed dated 31-10-2010.

Ex.A.2: Letter addressed by Plaintiff to Defendant dated 01.12.2014.

Ex.A.3: Letter addressed by Plaintiff to Defendant dated 11.12.2014.

Ex.A.4: Letter addressed by Plaintiff to Defendant dated 22.12.2014.

Ex.A.5: Advocate Notice issued by Plaintiff’s Advocate dated 22.01.2015.

Ex.A.6: Advocate Notice issued by Plaintiff’s Advocate dated 14.09.2015.

Ex.A.7: Reply Notice issued by Defendant through his Advocate

dated 21.09.2015.

Ex.A.8: Letter addressed by Defendant to Plaintiff dated 17.11.2015.

Ex.A.9: Reply Letter addressed by Plaintiff to Defendant dated 20.01.2016.

Ex.A.10: Postal Acknowledgment dated 21.01.2016

For Defendant: Ex.B.1: Office copy of registered legal notice dated 1.12.2014.

Ex.B.2: Office copy of registered reply notice dated 11.12.2014 got issued by defendant to the plaintiff sending account payee bankers cheque bearing No.000302 drawn on bank of India, Vizianagaram towards rent for the months of October and November, 2014.

Ex.B.3: Office copy of registered notice dated 12.1.2015 got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff alongwith acknowledgment sending account payee bankers cheque bearing NO.000343,

dated 5.1.2015 drawn on Bank of India, Vizianagaram

towards rent for the months of December, 2014 for an amount of Rs.20,235/-.

Ex.B.4: Office copy of registered notice dated 6.2.2015 got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff alongwith acknowledgment sending account payee bankers cheque bearing NO.000392.

dated 5.2.2015 drawn on Bank of India Vizianagaram

towards rent for the months of january, 2015 for an amount Rs.20.235/-.

Ex.B.5: Office copy of the registered notice dated 21.9.2015 got Issued by the defendant to the plaintiff alongwith acknowledgment sending account payee bankers chque bearing NO.000392 dated 1.2.2015 drawn on Bank of India, Vizianagaram towards rent for the months of January, 2015 for an amount of Rs. 20,235/-.

Ex.B.6: Office copy of registered legal notice dated 17.11.2015 got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff informing that the defendant deposited the every month rent to the bank account of the plaintiff.

Ex.B.7: Downloaded copy of bank account statement dated 16.11.2021 regarding the year 2016 of defendant showing every month rent to the plaintiff.

Ex.B.8: Downloaded copy of bank account statement dated 16.11.2021 regarding the year 2017 of defendant showing every month rent to the plaintiff.

Ex.B.9: Downioaded copy of bank account statement dated. 16.11.2021 regarding the year 2018 of defendant showing every month rent to the plaintiff.

Ex.B.10: Downloaded copy of bank account statement dated 16.11.2021 regarding the year 2019 of defendant showing every month rent to the plaintiff.

Ex.B.11: Downloaded copy of bank account statement dated 16.11.2021 regarding the year 2020 of defendant showing every month rent to the plaintiff.

Ex.B.12: Downloaded copy of bank account statement dated 16.11.2022 regarding the year 2021 of defendant showing every month rent to the plaintiff.

Ex.B.13: Downloaded copy of bank account statement dated 16.11.2021 regarding the year 2022 of defendant showing every month rent to the plaintiff.

Ex.B.14: Downloaded copy of bank account statement dated 16.11.2021 regarding the year 2023 of defendant showing every month rent to the plaintiff.

Sd/B.Ramya I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Vizianagaram

OS/111/2022

smt.Maripi Bharathi vs Smt.Lenka Vijaya Kumari

11 Apr 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Smt.L.Devi Rathna Kumari,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Vizianagaram.

Friday, the 11th day of April, 2025

Original Suit No.111 OF 2022Original Suit No.111 OF 2022

Between: Smt.Maripi Bharathi, W/o Kanta Rao, Aged 41 years, R/o Sagar Enclave, Flat No.S-5, Kalighat Colony, Cantonment, Vizianagaram Town and District. …Plaintiff

AND

1) Smt.Lenka Vijaya Kumari, W/o late Srinivasa Rao, Aged 46 years, R/o Vangapallipeta, Ramamandiram Street, Near Market Yard, Cheepurupalli Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2) Kum.Lenka Priya, D/o late Srinivasa Rao, Aged 24 years, rest ditto.

3) Lenka Ajay Ramu, S/o late Sinivasa Rao, Aged 22 years, rest ditto.

…Defendants.

The suit coming for final hearing on 08.04.2025 in the presence of Sri P.S.R.Murthy, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri R.Nagabushana Rao, learned counsel for the Defendants and having stood over for consideration to this day, the 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 suit amount of Rs.4,24,050/- (Rupees Four

Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand and Fifty Only), basing on Promissory

Note, for Rs.3,00,000/- dt.06.10.2019 and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are:

The plaintiff claims that on 06.10.2019, Lenka Srinivasa

Rao (husband of Defendant No.1 and father of Defendants No.2 and 3) borrowed a sum of 3,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his personal₹ needs and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum on demand. Despite repeated demands by the plaintiff, the borrower failed to repay the principal or interest. On 07.09.2021, the said Lenka Srinivasa Rao passed away, leaving Defendants No.1 to 3 as his legal heirs, who succeeded to his estate. After his death, the plaintiff approached the defendants and demanded for repayment of the debt. The defendants acknowledged the debt, but failed to make payment despite of repeated requests. A registered legal notice was issued by the plaintiff on 25.11.2021, which was duly received by the defendants. In response, the defendants sent a reply on 29.11.2021 containing false and baseless allegations. As the debt remains unpaid, the plaintiff has filed this suit seeking recovery of the amount due under the promissory note.

Hence, the plaint.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 adopted the written statement filed by the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 filed written statement denying all the allegations of 3 the plaint and submitted that the 1st defendant, along with the 2nd and 3rd defendants, admits to be as the legal heirs of late Lenka Srinivasa

Rao, but denies all allegations made by the plaintiff regarding the promissory note dated 06.10.2019, and the alleged liability thereunder, stating that the claims are false and fabricated for the purpose of filing the suit. The defendants assert they never admitted any liability, nor they aware of the scribe or attestors of the said promissory note. It is stated that late Srinivasa Rao was estranged from his family, addicted to alcohol, failed in his duties as a husband and father, and had no cordial relationship with his wife and children for over a decade. He was irregular in paying court-ordered maintenance of ₹25,000/month and lacked any estate or assets inherited by the defendants. The defendants contend that the deceaseds parents and siblings, who are also legal heirs, are necessary parties to the suit and their non-inclusion renders the suit, bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The reply notice dated 29.11.2021 forms part of the defense and the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Having considering the plaint and written statement, the following issues were framed:

1) Whether the suit promissory note dt.06.10.2019 is true, valid, supported by consideration and executed by Lenka Srinivasa 4

Rao (deceased) and therefore, binding on the defendant Nos.1 to 3?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit promissory note amount?

3) To what relief?

5. The plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.3. On the other hand, the defendants did not choose to adduce their evidence, before the court, inspite of several opportunities were given to them and the evidence of defendant was closed.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the learned Counsel for the Defendants.

7. Issues No.1: Whether the suit promissory note dt.06.10.2019 is true, valid, supported by consideration and executed by Lenka

Srinivasa Rao (deceased) and therefore, binding on the defendant

Nos.1 to 3?

The burden of proving the execution, validity, and enforceability of the suit promissory note dated 06.10.2019, lies squarely on the plaintiff. In order to establish the genuineness of the promissory note and to demonstrate that it is supported by consideration, the plaintiff must not only produce the document but also substantiate its execution through admissible evidence. The plaintiff has marked the promissory note as Ex.A.1 and claimed that it was executed by the deceased Lenka Srinivasa Rao for a loan amount 5 of Rs.3,00,000/- borrowed for personal purposes. However, the plaintiff has failed to examine any of the attesting witnesses to the promissory note. As per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if a document is required by law to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until one attesting witness has been called to prove its execution, provided such witness is alive and capable of giving evidence. In the present case, although the plaintiff admitted that the attestors, namely Dali Naidu and Ramesh, were alive and known, he failed to examine either of them.

8.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kartar Singh v. Harjinder

Singh reported in (1990) 3 SCC 487, held that "where the execution of a document is seriously disputed, the attesting witnesses must be examined to prove execution". Similarly, in S.R. Sukumar v. S.

Sunaad Raghuram, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 609, the Hon'ble Apex

Court reiterated that "a person who challenges the execution of a promissory note has a right to have the execution strictly proved".

The plaintiff’s failure to call upon any attesting witness casts a serious doubt on the authenticity of Ex.A.1. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not produced any independent evidence or corroborative testimony to prove the consideration passed under the promissory note. The explanation that the loan was taken for children’s education was not mentioned in the promissory note itself. In Krishna Mohan Kul @ 6

Nani Charan Kul v. Pratima Maity reported in (2004) 9 SCC 468, it was held that "the absence of recitals regarding consideration and purpose in the promissory note, coupled with absence of independent evidence, affects the credibility of the document.

9.Additionally, the circumstances surrounding the alleged transaction are suspicious. The plaintiff claimed acquaintance with the deceased only since 2018, while also acknowledging that the deceased’s family had strained relations with him and that a maintenance case had been filed against him. The defense has strongly contended that the deceased was estranged from his family and had no financial reliability or social credibility, making it improbable that anyone would have lent a substantial sum without security or documentation of purpose. No proof has been adduced to show that the deceased had requested the loan in presence of reliable witnesses or repaid any part thereof, which could have supported the claim of a genuine debt. The claim that the deceased was earning over Rs.1,00,000/- per month as a government teacher is not substantiated with any salary slips or official records.

10.Even assuming the execution of the promissory note is proved, the question remains whether it binds Defendant Nos.1 to 3 or not. Under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, legal heirs are liable to the extent of estate inherited from the deceased. In 7

Andhra Bank v. Srinivasan, reported in 2001 SCC OnLine AP 654, it was held that "in the absence of evidence showing that legal heirs succeeded to any estate of the deceased, they cannot be made liable for the debts of the deceased". In the present case, the plaintiff has not produced any evidence to show that Defendant Nos.1 to 3 inherited any movable or immovable property from the deceased. The defendants have categorically denied inheriting any estate and have asserted that the parents of the deceased are alive and are also legal heirs. Their exclusion from the suit is a material lapse.

11.In view of the above findings, this Court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the promissory note dated 06.10.2019 is true, valid, supported by consideration, and duly executed by the deceased Lenka Srinivasa Rao. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the defendants inherited any estate of the deceased so as to make the promissory note binding upon them.

Hence, the issue is answered in negative.

Issue No.2:Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit promissory note amount?

12.The entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the amount claimed under the suit promissory note dated 06.10.2019, depends entirely on whether the plaintiff has successfully established the execution, validity, and enforceability of the promissory note by the 8 deceased, and whether the defendants, as alleged legal heirs, are liable to repay the amount. In a civil suit for recovery based on a promissory note, the plaintiff must discharge the burden of proof under Sections 101 to 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is not sufficient for the plaintiff merely to file the promissory note. The plaintiff must prove that the promissory note was executed by the deceased and it was supported by lawful consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and that such liability is legally enforceable.

13.In the present case, the plaintiff has produced the promissory note dated 06.10.2019, marked as Ex.A.1, and claimed that the deceased Lenka Srinivasa Rao borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from him for his necessities. However, the plaintiff has not examined either of the attestors of the document, despite the fact that they were identified by name and acknowledged to be available. This is a fatal lapse, because when the execution of a promissory note is specifically denied, the attesting witnesses must be examined in accordance with

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Kartar Singh v. Harjinder Singh reported in (1990) 3 SCC 487, and in

K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 354, emphasized that where the due execution of a document is 9 questioned, it must be proved in a manner consistent with legal requirements, including the examination of attesting witnesses.

14.Further, the plaintiff has failed to adduce any documentary proof or oral testimony to show the flow of consideration under the promissory note. There is no bank statement, withdrawal slip, or acknowledgment of receipt of cash by the deceased. While Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raises a presumption of consideration, such presumption is rebuttable. Once the defendants deny execution and raise serious doubts over the genuineness of the transaction, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that consideration indeed passed. In Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde reported in (2008) 4 SCC 54, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that: "the statutory presumption under Section 118 cannot be blindly applied and must be assessed in the context of surrounding circumstances". In the present case, there are glaring inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged loan transaction, including the plaintiff's failure to explain why no supporting proof of the transaction exists.

15.Moreover, the plaintiff’s own deposition weakens his case. He has admitted that he knew the deceased only since 2018 and has no knowledge about his family disputes or maintenance orders that were in force. The plaintiff also admitted that the deceased’s 10 parents are alive and that he did not issue any notice to them nor implead them as parties to the suit. This raises the further legal issue of non-joinder of necessary parties. As per Section 8 of the Hindu

Succession Act, 1956, when a Hindu male dies intestate, his Class I heirs inherit his estate. In the present case, the defendants have contended that the deceased parents, who are also Class I heirs, are still alive and were deliberately excluded from the proceedings. This omission is significant because any liability based on inheritance of estate, must be determined with reference to the complete list of legal heirs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Premco Saw Mill v. State Bank of India, reported in AIR 1983 SC 1208, held that "the absence of necessary parties renders the suit defective and non-maintainable in law".

16.Additionally, the defendants have specifically denied having inherited any property from the deceased. They deposed that the deceased abandoned the family more than a decade ago, that they were living separately, and that they did not receive any movable or immovable assets after his death. The plaintiff has not placed any evidence on record to contradict these claims. There is no material to show that the defendants derived any benefit or asset from the estate of the deceased. In Andhra Bank v. Srinivasan, 2001 SCC OnLine AP 654, it was categorically held that "unless the legal heirs inherited 11 any estate from the deceased, they cannot be made liable for the debts incurred by the deceased during his lifetime". Therefore, in the absence of proof of succession to the estate, the principle of pious obligation or legal liability does not arise.

17.It is also necessary to consider that the plaintiff's conduct is not free from suspicion. The failure to examine the attestors, non- production of proof of consideration, omission to implead known legal heirs, and filing of the suit after the death of the alleged debtor without any acknowledgement of liability during his lifetime, collectively cast a shadow over the bona fides of the claim. Civil courts are courts of equity, and the plaintiff seeking equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands and full disclosure. The suppression of relevant facts, such as the pendency of maintenance proceedings and the existence of other legal heirs, amounts to lack of bona fides and disentitles the plaintiff to discretionary relief.

18.In light of the above legal and factual analysis, this

Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has failed to prove his entitlement to the recovery of the amount under the suit promissory note dated 06.10.2019. The promissory note has not been proved as a valid, enforceable, and supported instrument, and the liability of the defendants, being legal heirs who inherited no estate, 12 is not established. Therefore, the issue is answered in negative, and the plaintiff is not entitled to the recovery sought for in the suit.

Issue No.3: To what relief?

19.In view of the findings on the foregoing issues, particularly with respect to the failure of the plaintiff to prove the due execution and validity of the suit promissory note dated 06.10.2019, and the absence of credible evidence to establish that any consideration was passed under the said document, and further in the absence of any material showing that the defendants inherited any estate from the deceased Lenka Srinivasa Rao, so as to make them liable for the alleged debt, it is evident that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the suit.

20.The plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof in accordance with Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881, has been effectively rebutted by the defendants through the denial of execution, lack of attestor testimony, and the suspicious nature of the circumstances surrounding the alleged transaction. The plaintiff's own admissions, inconsistencies in evidence, failure to implead necessary parties, and non-production of critical corroborative materials all indicate that the plaintiff has failed to prove his claim to the standard required in a civil suit. Accordingly, 13 this Court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of recovery of the suit amount or any other consequential reliefs as prayed for. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

21.IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this, 11th day of April, 2025.

Sd/L.Devi Rathna Kumari

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: P.W.1: M.BharathiNIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A.1: Original promissory note, dated 06.10.2019 for Rs.3,00,000/- executed by the deceased L.Srinivasa Rao in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice dt.25.11.2021.

Ex.A.3: Office copy of reply notice dt.29.11.2021

FOR DEFENDANTS : NIL.

Sd/L.Devi Rathna Kumari

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Vizianagaram.

OS/111/2022

smt.Maripi Bharathi vs Smt.Lenka Vijaya Kumari

11 Apr 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Smt.L.Devi Rathna Kumari,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Vizianagaram.

Friday, the 11th day of April, 2025

Original Suit No.111 OF 2022Original Suit No.111 OF 2022

Between: Smt.Maripi Bharathi, W/o Kanta Rao, Aged 41 years, R/o Sagar Enclave, Flat No.S-5, Kalighat Colony, Cantonment, Vizianagaram Town and District. …Plaintiff

AND

1) Smt.Lenka Vijaya Kumari, W/o late Srinivasa Rao, Aged 46 years, R/o Vangapallipeta, Ramamandiram Street, Near Market Yard, Cheepurupalli Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2) Kum.Lenka Priya, D/o late Srinivasa Rao, Aged 24 years, rest ditto.

3) Lenka Ajay Ramu, S/o late Sinivasa Rao, Aged 22 years, rest ditto.

…Defendants.

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff, against the

Defendant, for recovery of suit amount of Rs.4,24,050/- (Rupees Four

Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand and Fifty Only), basing on Promissory

Note, for Rs.3,00,000/- dt.06.10.2019 and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are:

The plaintiff claims that on 06.10.2019, Lenka Srinivasa

Hence, the plaint.

4. Having considering the plaint and written statement, the following issues were framed:

1) Whether the suit promissory note dt.06.10.2019 is true, valid, supported by consideration and executed by Lenka Srinivasa 4

Rao (deceased) and therefore, binding on the defendant Nos.1 to 3?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit promissory note amount?

3) To what relief?

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the learned Counsel for the Defendants.

7. Issues No.1: Whether the suit promissory note dt.06.10.2019 is true, valid, supported by consideration and executed by Lenka

Srinivasa Rao (deceased) and therefore, binding on the defendant

Nos.1 to 3?

8.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kartar Singh v. Harjinder

Singh reported in (1990) 3 SCC 487, held that "where the execution of a document is seriously disputed, the attesting witnesses must be examined to prove execution". Similarly, in S.R. Sukumar v. S.

Sunaad Raghuram, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 609, the Hon'ble Apex

Court reiterated that "a person who challenges the execution of a promissory note has a right to have the execution strictly proved".

Hence, the issue is answered in negative.

Issue No.2:Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit promissory note amount?

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Kartar Singh v. Harjinder Singh reported in (1990) 3 SCC 487, and in

18.In light of the above legal and factual analysis, this

Issue No.3: To what relief?

20.The plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof in accordance with Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable

21.IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this, 11th day of April, 2025.

Sd/L.Devi Rathna Kumari

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: P.W.1: M.BharathiNIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A.1: Original promissory note, dated 06.10.2019 for Rs.3,00,000/- executed by the deceased L.Srinivasa Rao in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice dt.25.11.2021.

Ex.A.3: Office copy of reply notice dt.29.11.2021

FOR DEFENDANTS : NIL.

Sd/L.Devi Rathna Kumari

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Vizianagaram.

OS/111/2022

smt.Maripi Bharathi vs Smt.Lenka Vijaya Kumari

11 Apr 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Smt.L.Devi Rathna Kumari,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Vizianagaram.

Friday, the 11th day of April, 2025

Original Suit No.111 OF 2022Original Suit No.111 OF 2022

Between: Smt.Maripi Bharathi, W/o Kanta Rao, Aged 41 years, R/o Sagar Enclave, Flat No.S-5, Kalighat Colony, Cantonment, Vizianagaram Town and District. …Plaintiff

AND

1) Smt.Lenka Vijaya Kumari, W/o late Srinivasa Rao, Aged 46 years, R/o Vangapallipeta, Ramamandiram Street, Near Market Yard, Cheepurupalli Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2) Kum.Lenka Priya, D/o late Srinivasa Rao, Aged 24 years, rest ditto.

3) Lenka Ajay Ramu, S/o late Sinivasa Rao, Aged 22 years, rest ditto.

…Defendants.

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff, against the

Defendant, for recovery of suit amount of Rs.4,24,050/- (Rupees Four

Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand and Fifty Only), basing on Promissory

Note, for Rs.3,00,000/- dt.06.10.2019 and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are:

The plaintiff claims that on 06.10.2019, Lenka Srinivasa

Hence, the plaint.

4. Having considering the plaint and written statement, the following issues were framed:

1) Whether the suit promissory note dt.06.10.2019 is true, valid, supported by consideration and executed by Lenka Srinivasa 4

Rao (deceased) and therefore, binding on the defendant Nos.1 to 3?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit promissory note amount?

3) To what relief?

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the learned Counsel for the Defendants.

7. Issues No.1: Whether the suit promissory note dt.06.10.2019 is true, valid, supported by consideration and executed by Lenka

Srinivasa Rao (deceased) and therefore, binding on the defendant

Nos.1 to 3?

8.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kartar Singh v. Harjinder

Singh reported in (1990) 3 SCC 487, held that "where the execution of a document is seriously disputed, the attesting witnesses must be examined to prove execution". Similarly, in S.R. Sukumar v. S.

Sunaad Raghuram, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 609, the Hon'ble Apex

Court reiterated that "a person who challenges the execution of a promissory note has a right to have the execution strictly proved".

Hence, the issue is answered in negative.

Issue No.2:Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit promissory note amount?

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Kartar Singh v. Harjinder Singh reported in (1990) 3 SCC 487, and in

18.In light of the above legal and factual analysis, this

Issue No.3: To what relief?

20.The plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof in accordance with Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable

21.IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this, 11th day of April, 2025.

Sd/L.Devi Rathna Kumari

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: P.W.1: M.BharathiNIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A.1: Original promissory note, dated 06.10.2019 for Rs.3,00,000/- executed by the deceased L.Srinivasa Rao in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice dt.25.11.2021.

Ex.A.3: Office copy of reply notice dt.29.11.2021

FOR DEFENDANTS : NIL.

Sd/L.Devi Rathna Kumari

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Vizianagaram.

CC/2041/2022 Acquitted

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs Surapathi Narasimhulu

25 Apr 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE): VIZIANAGARAM

Present:Sri M. Srinivasarao, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram,

Friday, this the 25th day April, 2025

C.C.No. 2041/2022

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB., Bhogapuram. Police Station, Vizianagaram. … Complainant

And:

Surapathi Narasimhulu, S/o.Narasimhulu, aged 26 years, r/o.Tippalavalasa panchayati, Pusapatirega mandal, Vizianagaram.

….… Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 20-01-2025 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the

Complainant State represented by the Police and Sri.K.Phalgunarao,

Learned Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB.,

Bhogapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of AP.Prohibition Act in Cr.No.45/2020.

02.The case of the prosecution in brief are that: On 15-10-2020 at about 14.00 hrs, L.W.6/M.Venkatarao and accompanied with L.Ws. 1 to 5 on credible information, he along with staff about illegal possession and sales of liquor conducted raid and nabbed the accused, who stated that she is eking her livelihood by doing servant maid works and also he purchase liquor bottles and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of her house with two plastic bags containing liquor bottles in it, caught to police and admitted his guilty. On that LW6 asked the said person whether she is having any permission for selling or transporting the liquor, he stated that she did not have any permission or license is available at the item, LW8 opened the said two white plastic cans and found i.e., 20 liters of illicitly distilled liquor each can – total 40 liters and

LW6 seized the same under cover of occurrence report and separated each one bottle from each brand from seized bottles for chemical analysis. The occurrence report was drafted at scene of offence. Later they return to the police station along with seized property and accused for further investigation.

Basing on the occurrence report LW6 registered the case in

Cr.no.45/2020 under section 7(a) r/w8(e) of AP.Prohibition Act. Later accused produced before the honourable court for judicial remand.

03.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under section 7(a) r/w8(e) of AP.Prohibition Act.

04.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

05.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., a charges were framed for the offence under section 7(a) r/w8(e) of

AP.Prohibition Act against accused was read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

P.Ws.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1 and

M.O.2 are marked.

07. The accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08. Heard both sides, perused the record.

09.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 7(a) r/w8(e) of AP.Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.POINT:-The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1 and M.O.2.

11.PW.1/A.Apparao, police Constable, deposed that on 15-10-2020 at about 14.00 hrs, L.W.6/M.Venkatarao and accompanied with L.Ws. 1 to 5 on credible information, he along with staff about illegal possession and sales of liquor conducted raid and nabbed the accused, who stated that 4 she is eking her livelihood by doing servant maid works and also he purchase liquor bottles and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of her house with two plastic bags containing liquor bottles in it, caught to police and admitted his guilty. On that LW6 asked the said person whether she is having any permission for selling or transporting the liquor, he stated that she did not have any permission or license is available at the item, LW8 opened the said two white plastic cans and found i.e., 20 liters of illicitly distilled liquor each can – total 40 liters and seized the property under the cover of occurrence report by L.Ws.4 and 5, after explaining that transporting illegal possession and selling of liquor bottles in higher price in an offence. The occurrence report was got drafted at scene of offence i.e., marked as Ex.P.1. Later they return to the police station along with accused and seized property. Admittedly in her cross examination deposed that scene of offence is busy locality there are so many men are roaming there, himself and LW5 did not secure the proper persons as independent witness in this case. He denied that they never went to the scene offence nor arrested the accused nor seized the property from the possession of accused.

12.P.W.2/M.Venkatarao, Sub Inspector, who arrested accused, seized the property from the accused and registered the case and filed charge sheet. He corroborated with the version of P.W.1 in his chief.

Further, deposed that himself prepared occurrence report at the scene of offence i.e., Ex.P1. Later, he returned to the SEB., Bhogapuram Police 5

Station, Vizianagaram along with seized property and accused. Basing on

Ex.P1, registered a case in Cr.No.45/2020 U/Sec. 15-10-2020 at about 14.00 hrs, L.W.6/M.Venkatarao and accompanied with L.Ws. 1 to 5 on credible information, he along with staff about illegal possession and sales of liquor conducted raid and nabbed the accused, who stated that she is eking her livelihood by doing servant maid works and also he purchase liquor bottles and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of her house with two plastic bags containing liquor bottles in it, caught to police and admitted his guilty. On that LW6 asked the said person whether she is having any permission for selling or transporting the liquor, he stated that she did not have any permission or license is available at the item, LW8 opened the said two white plastic cans and found i.e., 20 liters of illicitly distilled liquor each can – total 40 liters and issued FIR i.e., Ex.P2. Later

LW5 conducted further investigation in this case and LW5 received the chemical examination report i.e., Ex.P3, later he received the destruction proceedings from the Superintendant of Police, Vizianagaram for destruction of case property along with the other case property. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

Admittedly, in P.W.2 cross examination deposed that they did not arrest the accused nor seized the liquor bottles from the possession of accused.

He denied that false case was foisted against the accused for statistical purpose.

13.On considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is elicited from them that on 15-10-2020 at about 14.00 hrs,

L.W.6/M.Venkatarao and accompanied with L.Ws. 1 to 5 on credible information, he along with staff about illegal possession and sales of liquor conducted raid and nabbed the accused, who stated that she is eking her livelihood by doing servant maid works and also he purchase liquor bottles and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of her house with two plastic bags containing liquor bottles in it, caught to police and admitted his guilty. On that LW6 asked the said person whether she is having any permission for selling or transporting the liquor, he stated that she did not have any permission or license is available at the item, LW8 opened the said two white plastic cans and found i.e., 20 liters of illicitly distilled liquor each can – total 40 liters, and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of his house and caught from police and admitted accused guilty.

On that LW5 asked the said person whether she is having any permission for selling or transporting the liquor, he stated that she did not have any permission or license is available at the item, LW6 opened the said polythene bag and found the above contraband and LW6 seized the same under cover of occurrence report and separated each one bottle from each brand from seized bottles for chemical analysis i.e., M.O.1 and

M.O.2. The occurrence report was drafted at scene of offence. Later they return to the police station along with seized property and accused for further investigation. Basing on the occurrence report LW8 registered the 7 case in Cr.no.45/2020 under section 7(a) r.w 8(e) of AP.Prohibition Act.

Later accused produced before the honourable court for judicial remand.

PW2 took up three sample bottles from seized property i.e., MO.1 and

M.O.2 to the Govt. Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory of

Visakhapatnam for analysis through the letter of advice and PW2 received analysis report i.e., Ex.P3, L.W.5 sent a letter to the Superintendent of

Police, Vizianagaram for destruction of seized remaining property and he destructed the seized property in the presence of mediators i.e., L.Ws. 4 and 5 on 20-05-2024.

14.Admittedly PW.2 did not try to secure any independent witnesses and also did not try to secure the official at Tippalavalasa village, Vizianagaram. The scene of offence is a residential area, even though, the investigating office did not try to secure the mediators from the place where accused was alleged to be seized property and arrested, without having any license nor permission from the government. Further,

PW.1 corroborated version of PW.2 in all aspects they are police officials to the support of the evidence of the one another.

15.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW.2 being the investigating officer, who is an interested witness to this case and PW.

1 and LWs. 2, LW3 and L.W.5 are also police staff, they assist the PW.2 at the time of arrest of accused seized of the alleged property i.e., 40 liters of ID liquor from the possession of accused, and also he assist the drafting of occurrence report by the PW.2 at the scene i.e.,Ex.P1, and their evidence cannot be relied without supporting evidence of mediators 8 and official witness from the Ashoknagar, Vizianagaram. Then, the learned counsel further submitted that U/s 100 (4) Cr.P.C was not followed the procedure, at the time of search and seizure of alleged property at the scene, seizure and drafting of police proceedings at the scene. It is submitted that the alleged recovery i.e., 40 liters of ID liquor, and drafting of Ex.P1 occurrence report is required U/s 25 and 27 of

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 casts serious aspersions on the case of the prosecution that the accused was arrested at the alleged scene of offence on the alleged date and time.

The Judgment reported in 2006 (1) ALT (Crl.) 11 (A.P)., - Boina

Chinnam Naidu Vs State of A.P., wherein their lordships held that -“Normally conviction cannot be sustained on the strength of the evidence of the Investigating Officer alone in the absence of any other independent evidence. It is no doubt true that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard but at the same time, it would be unsafe to rely upon the evidence of the investigating Officer in the absence of any other independent evidence to convict the accused normally.”

The Judgment reported in 2005(3) ALT (Crl) AP(1)page - wherein their Lordship held that: “Evidence of Excise officials, who are official and certainly interested witnesses does not inspire the confidence.

Therefore, have been considered the observation and discussions of above relied cases of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh that the police official/investigation officer is himself complainant and 9 other witness also police constables, but they did not procure independent/official witness is cited to prove their case alleged against accused, thus the evidence of police officials cannot be looked into without supporting the evidence of independent witness and official witness as per the provisions of Sec.25 & 27 of Indian Evidence act,1872 and also required U/sec. 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. at the time of search and seizer.

16.Furthermore, the seizure of the sample bottles, MO.1 & M.O.2 were not sent for analysis on the same day. Further all the bottles recovered from the possession of the accused is not sent to the Chemical

Examiner. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh inMudavath Mothia v. State of A.P., 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P.), was pleased to hold that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that all bottles seized from the accused contain Indian Liquor. In this case all the bottles are not sent to the Chemical Examiner.

17.Therefore, in view of my above discussion and relying upon the decisions, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the Police

Officials have seized the property from the possession of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

18. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds 10 of Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged

Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the Appellate Court if any appeal is preferred. M.O.1 and M.O.2 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 25th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M. Srinivasarao,

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

PW.1 : A.Apparao -None-

PW.2 : M.Venkatarao

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Occurrence report

Ex.P2: First Information Report.

Ex.P3: Chemical analysis report

Ex.P4: Destruction proceedings.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.O.1 & M.O.2 : Drawn two sample bottles from the seized property.

Sd/- M. Srinivasarao,

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram.

Order Record 7,583 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/435/2024	State Bank of India, Dasannapeta Main branch vs Sangam Reddy Sayanarayana	25 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
CC/350/2021	Vaja Ramana vs Suvvani Venkata Ramana	25 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
CC/2041/2022	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs Surapathi Narasimhulu	25 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
CC/1203/2024	Spl. Enforcement Bureau, Bhogapuram. vs Yerukonda Ramulu	24 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
CC/1442/2022	State Rep by Sub Inspector P and E, Vizianagaram II Rural vs Badithamani Rambabu	24 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
CC/1812/2024	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs L.Appalanaidu	24 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
CC/1813/2024	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs P.Apparao	24 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
CC/1815/2024	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs B.Harish	24 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/263/2021	Naramsettu Srinivasa Rao vs Yarlagadda Satyanarayana	22 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
OS/289/2016	Ponduru Ramulamma and 2 others vs Munni Mani	22 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/128/2022	State Rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Nellimarla PS vs Kommuru Srinivasarao	22 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/264/2023	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs Badugu Naga Raju	22 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/292/2020	State Rep by Proh and Excise Inspector , Vizianagaram II r vs Palli Venkata Lakshmi	22 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/302/2023	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs Gorle Rambabu	22 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/396/2023	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs Kondapalli Srinivasa Rao	22 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/2049/2021	State Rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Nellimarla PS vs Karri Sankararao	22 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/2137/2022	The State represented by the Sub Inspector, SEB, Bhogapuram vs Kanapareddy Appalaraju	22 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/3003/2022	State Rep by Sub Inspector SEB, Bhogapuram vs Kanapareddy Appala Raju	22 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
OS/57/2022	Malyada Durga Rao vs Meesala Adinarayana	21 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/269/2021	Akula Gurumurthy vs Bangaru Yerri naidu	17 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
CC/302/2021	Saripallin Kiran Kumar vs Dhammu Sandeepkumar	17 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
OS/68/2025	Kandhi Satyanarayana vs Muddana Srinivasa rao	17 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
OS/86/2020	Chikali Nagaraju vs Sabbisetty Sridevi and 2 others	17 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
OS/193/2024	Bhogapurapu Satyanarayana vs Karri Sura Reddi	17 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1512/2019	State Rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Bhogapuram PS vs Sigireddi Venkatarao	17 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1765/2024	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs B.Krishna	17 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1770/2024	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs M.T.Naidu	17 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1771/2024	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs R.Sai Tirupatirao	17 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1773/2024	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs M.Sominaidu	17 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1776/2024	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs N.Satyanarayana and another	17 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1777/2024	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs M.Laxmanarao	17 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1781/2024	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs T.Ramaswamy	17 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1783/2024	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs G.Bhavani	17 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1825/2024	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs B.Srinu	17 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
OS/377/2020	Mokara Mangarao vs Dharamavarapu Appalaraju	16 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
OS/88/2016	N.V. Chalamaji vs Ms. Srinivasa Corporation	16 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
OS/362/2024	Patnala Sivaram Shankar vs Kattamuri Abhinay	16 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
OS/212/2024	Raghavapudi Chaya Devi vs Siddila Ramesh	16 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
OS/568/2024	Nandipalli Manga vs Pinninti Appala Raju	16 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
EP/70/2019	Asapu Anuradha vs Gutti Ganesh	15 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
OS/825/2019	Kokkiri.Shyam Kumar vs Gadula.Pydi Raju	15 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
EP/127/2023	Kapil Chits (Kosta) Pvt Ltd,Asst. Managerm Aravelie Gopalakrishana s/o Suryanarayana vs Regidi Krishna Mojana rao	15 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
CC/559/2022	State Rep by Sub Inspector SEB, Bhogapuram station vs Mokara Manga Rao	15 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/655/2020	S.Suryanarayana Reddy vs Smt. Datti mahalakshmi	15 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1068/2024	SHO, Gantyada PS vs Badithamani Apparao	15 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1160/2024	S.H.O., Vizianagaram ( Rural ) P.S vs Ch. Yeruku Naidu	15 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1404/2022	Proh. and Excise Inspector, S.Kota. vs Vemali Appalasuri	15 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1547/2022	State Rep by Enforcement Inspector Viziangaram II Rural vs Kilari Narayanappadu	15 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1817/2024	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs Y.Basingamma	15 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1818/2024	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs R.Gowri Sankar	15 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1852/2024	S.H.O, Vizianagaram Rural P.S vs Karaka Ramu	15 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/2385/2022	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs Sinuku Rambabu	15 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
OS/111/2022	smt.Maripi Bharathi vs Smt.Lenka Vijaya Kumari	11 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
OS/769/2019	Atchanta Venkateswara Rao vs Belagam Suersh Kumar	11 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	Compromised
CC/967/2022	Sai Jala Borewells, repted by its Kadagala Anand vs Samreddy Mahender Reddy	11 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
CC/201363/2018	Koilada Ravi Babu vs Makkuva Jayasri	11 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
EP/154/2024	Kandi Lakshmi vs Gorle Mangamma	10 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
CC/287/2020	Peetala Ravi Shanker vs Mohammad Irfanulla	10 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
EP/20/2021	Kommu Akkulu vs Jetti Suri Babu	10 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
OS/512/2021	Sunkari Dora Babu vs Gopisetty Madhu	10 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
MC/29/2019	Pesala Lakshmi vs Pesala Rambabu	10 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
OS/394/2021	Hemanth Kumar Bhoi @ Hemanth Bhoi vs Kolli Appala Ramu	09 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
OS/335/2023	Kotyada Venkata Ramana vs Juttada Appa Rao	09 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/176/2024	The Inspector of Police-Excise, Vizianagaram-II vs SIRIGIDI DIVYA	09 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/468/2024	Special Enforcement Bureau, Vizianagaram II vs Bokki Ramayamma	09 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/843/2023	SEB, Vizianagaram II(R) vs Netheti Adhilaxmi	09 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/878/2023	SEB, Vizianagaram II(R) vs Pyla Narayana Rao	09 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/982/2023	The Inspector of Police-Excise, Vizianagaram-II vs Dumpa Suresh	09 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1200/2024	Sub-Inspector of Police, Pusapatirega Police Station. vs Jammu Ramunaidu	09 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1399/2022	Proh. and Excise Inspector, S.Kota. vs Bonda Ramanamma	09 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1606/2022	State Rep by Enforcement Sub Inspector S.Kota vs Routhu Anjibabu	09 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/2519/2022	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs Majji Durga Rao	09 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/2629/2022	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs Kolagana Pydiraju	09 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
OS/546/2024	State Bank of India,Poosapati Rega Branch,Rep.,By its Branch Mangaer Sri Korati Murali vs Gedala Narayana Rao	08 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
OS/29/2022	Jammu Venkata Ramana vs Pachchipulusu Srinivasa Rao	07 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	Compromised
EP/102/2024	MARGADARSI CHITFUNDS PVT LTD vs Vuppala Somasekhara Rao	07 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
EP/149/2024	Panchadi Gurunadha Rao vs Patnayakuni Venkata Hemambara Ratna Girish	07 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
OS/172/2022	Kandi Madhusudhana Rao vs B.Venkata Lakshmi	07 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
OS/682/2022	G Samalamma vs P Seethamma	07 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
EP/155/2024	Dasamanthula Kumari vs Dasamnthula Venkata rao	04 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
OS/89/2023	Vaja Ramana vs Kottuju Yamini Purna Thilaka	04 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
OS/303/2023	Goribindi Sanyasi Rao vs Guntaboina Janaki Rama Sinha	04 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
OS/463/2020	Yerra Eswara Rao vs Branch manager,cholamandalam investment and financecompany ltd,vzm branch,vzm.	04 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
CC/1494/2023	Pinninti Sanyasi Naidu vs Mannem Kalayan	04 Apr 2025	PDF	—
OS/571/2024	Yenninti Hindu Priya ( Kanakala) vs Oduru Santhi Kumari	04 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1062/2024	SHO, Gantyada PS vs Kolusu Appanna	04 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1066/2024	SHO, Gantyada PS vs Kinthada Ramesh	04 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/121/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SHO BHOGAPURAM POLIACE STATION vs MAMIDI KRISHNA MURTHY	03 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
CC/134/2018	SI of police, Bhogapuram vs A1. Mamidi Srinivas and another	03 Apr 2025	PDF	—
OS/512/2022	Canara Bank, V T Agraharam, Vizianagaram vs Sri Chamundeswari Traders Reptd by Proprietoe K Venkata Nelayya Setty	03 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/498/2021	M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Co. Ltd., vs Voleti Gopi	02 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
OS/234/2023	Bora Rama Suri Appanna vs Gompa Suri Bangaramma	02 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
OS/20/2025	Sathi Adinarayana Reddy vs Duvvu Saraswathi Alias Vara Saraswathi	01 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
OS/278/2023	Canara Bank Main Branch II vs Bowrisetty Uma	01 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
CC/174/2020	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Vizianagaram vs Viswanadhapalli Ravi Kiran	01 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
CC/488/2021	M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Vizianagaram. vs Pediredla Ravi Kumar	01 Apr 2025	ORDERS	—
CC/1185/2023	SI, SEB, Bhogapuram vs Gurrala Polayya	01 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1433/2022	State Rep by Sub Inspector of Police,SEB, Vizianagaram-1 vs Bongarala Mallesu	01 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
CC/3154/2022	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs Eedalapathi Trinadh	01 Apr 2025	JUDGMENT	—
EP/50/2020	M/s Shriram chits Pvt Ltd Rep by its Divisional Manager vs Bandaru Sanyasappadu	28 Mar 2025	ORDERS	—

Showing 100 of 7,583 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2025		156
Mar 2025		2,888
Feb 2025		178
Jan 2025		186
Dec 2024		3,329
Nov 2024		184
Oct 2024		217
Sep 2024		2,362
Aug 2024		175
Jul 2024		208
Jun 2024		788
May 2024		37

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt L.Devi Ratna Kumari handled?

Smt L.Devi Ratna Kumari has handled 12287 court orders since 2022 at PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM. The average disposal rate is 341 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt L.Devi Ratna Kumari hear?

Based on available records, Smt L.Devi Ratna Kumari primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM.

Where is Smt L.Devi Ratna Kumari currently posted?

Smt L.Devi Ratna Kumari is posted as I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division) at PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt L.Devi Ratna Kumari available online?

Yes. 25 judgments by Smt L.Devi Ratna Kumari are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt L.Devi Ratna Kumari dispose cases?

Smt L.Devi Ratna Kumari disposes approximately 341 cases per month, based on 12287 orders handled over their tenure at PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM.

Since when is Smt L.Devi Ratna Kumari serving?

Smt L.Devi Ratna Kumari has been serving at PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM since 2022.

Case Types

CC 50%

STC 38%

OS 9%

EP 3%

PRC 0%

MC 0%

FDP 0%

RCC 0%

Posting History

Aug 2024 — Apr 2025

I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division) · 1,527 orders
May 2024 — May 2024

Civil Judge (Junior Division)
May 2024 — Apr 2025

Spl Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P Prohibition and Excise Act-cum- III Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division) · 2,968 orders
Mar 2024 — Apr 2025

Prinicpal Civil Judge(Junior Division) · 2,088 orders
Mar 2023 — Apr 2025

Prinicpal Civil Judge(Junior Division) · 2,533 orders
Apr 2022 — Apr 2025

Prinicpal Civil Judge(Junior Division) · 3,171 orders

Outcomes on Record

Compromised 6

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Smt M.Babitha

Prl. District Judge

478 orders

Smt.K.Vijaya Kalyani

I Addl. District Judge

0 orders

Sri Manipati Sridhar

Spl. Judge -cum- IV Addl. District Judge

0 orders

Sri B.appala Swamy

Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Women-...

0 orders

Sri N.ramesh Naidu

Civil Judge(Senior Division)

0 orders

Sri M.Srinivasa Rao

Prinicpal Civil Judge(Junior Division)

3,187 orders

Sri M. S.h.r. Teja Chakravarthi

I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division)

364 orders

Smt Chinagodaba Srividya

Spl Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial o...

1,302 orders

Kum P.Bujji

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) f...

2,026 orders

← View all judges at PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM