Smt. M. Bhavani

Senior Civil Judge

Senior Civil Judge`s Court, Nandikotkur (Taluka) · Kurnool · Andhra Pradesh

Based on 8 recent orders

Smt. M. Bhavani, Senior Civil Judge, is posted at Senior Civil Judge`s Court, Nandikotkur (Taluka), Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India. 8 court orders on record since 2017. 6 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles EP, OS cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/100008/2015

K.Upendra Reddy vs B.Sarath Kumar Reddy

09 Mar 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

Present:- Smt. M. Bhavani,

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandikotkur.

Thursday, the Ninth (9th) day of March, 2017.

O.S. No.8 of 2015

Between:

k. Upendra Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, Hindu, aged 40 years,

Budhawarapeta, Kurnool Town and District.… PLAINTIFF.

And

1. B. Sarath Kumar Reddy, S/o B. Siva Reddy, Hindu, Aged 24 years, R/o

Pagidyala Village and Mandal.

2. B. Rama Krishna Murthy, S/o Seshaiah, Hindu, aged 64 years, R/o

H.No.51-980/A1, Illurnagar, Kurnool City and District.

3. Pasupula Pedda Sunkanna, S/o Rathnamaiah, Hindu, aged 57 years,

R/o Tharigopula Village, Jupadubunglow Mandal, Kurnool District.

… DEFENDANTS.

*** * * * * ***

This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants, for specific performance of contract of sale consequential possession it value for Rs.1,50,000/- being the value of the land mentioned in the agreement of sale with subsequent interest on 6% per annum, from the date of suit till the date of payment, and for costs of the Suit.

This Suit, coming on this day, for Cross examination of DW1,

before me, in the presence of Sri S. Venkata Subba Reddy, Advocate for

the Plaintiff, and Sri T. Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the

Defendants, and upon filing a Memo by the Counsel for Plaintiff, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Counsel for Plaintiff filed a Memo, stating that the Plaintiff is not pressing the Suit. Memo recorded. Hence, the Suit is dismissed, without costs.

Written and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 9th day of

March, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIKOTKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

P.W.1: K. Upendra Reddy.

P.W.2: N. Rama Krishna.

P.W.3: M. Pyari Prasad.

P.W.4: K. Swamanna.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.P1: Original Agreement of Sale dated 09.07.2007, executed by D1 in favour of the Plaintiff.

Ex.P2: Office Copy of Legal Notice, dated 14.06.2014.

Ex.P3: Un-served postal cover of D1.

Ex.P4: Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, dated 27.07.2007, executed by D1 and one Siva Reddy in favour of D2.

Ex.P5: Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed, dated 26-04-2014, executed by D2 in favour of D3.

Ex.P6: Office Copy of Legal Notice, dated 24-07-2014.

Ex.P7: Postal Receipts (3 in Numbers).

Ex.P8: Un-Served postal cover of D1.

Ex.P9: Postal Acknowledgment of D2.

Ex.P10: Postal acknowledgment of D3.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

None

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

NIL.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIKOTKUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

Present:- Smt. M. Bhavani,

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandikotkur.

Thursday, the Ninth (9th) day of March, 2017.

O.S. No.8 of 2015

Between:

k. Upendra Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, Hindu, aged 40 years,

Budhawarapeta, Kurnool Town and District.… PLAINTIFF.

And

1. B. Sarath Kumar Reddy, S/o B. Siva Reddy, Hindu, Aged 24 years, R/o

Pagidyala Village and Mandal.

2. B. Rama Krishna Murthy, S/o Seshaiah, Hindu, aged 64 years, R/o

H.No.51-980/A1, Illurnagar, Kurnool City and District.

3. Pasupula Pedda Sunkanna, S/o Rathnamaiah, Hindu, aged 57 years,

R/o Tharigopula Village, Jupadubunglow Mandal, Kurnool District.

… DEFENDANTS.

*** * * * * ***

Plaint presented on 16-12-2014 and filed on 05-02-2015.

Cause of action for the Suit arose at Pagidyala Village and Mandal on 09-07-2007, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court to entertain the Suit.

Jurisdiction Value of the Suit is Rs.1,50,000/- and a Court Fee of

Rs.3,926/- is paid under Section 39 of A.P.C.F. Act.

This Suit, coming on this day, for Cross examination of DW1,

before me, in the presence of Sri S. Venkata Subba Reddy, Advocate for

the Plaintiff, and Sri T. Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the

Defendants, and upon filing a Memo by the Counsel for Plaintiff, this

Court doth order and decree as follows:

1.That the Suit be and the same is hereby dismissed, as not pressed.

2.That there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 09th day of

March, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDIKOTKUR.

EP/100015/2016

Racherla Yellaiah vs The Special Deputy Collector-LAO, SRBC, Nandyal

28 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

Present:- Smt. M. Bhavani,

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandikotkur.

Friday, the Twenty Eighth (28th) day of April, 2017.

E.P.No.15 of 2016 in L.A.O.P.No. 202 of 2008

Between

Racherla Yellaiah, S/o Thirumalaiah, Aged 48 Years, Agriculturist, resident of Talamudipi Village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District.

…Petitioner/Decree Holder.

And

The Special Deputy Collector [L.A.O.], S.R.B.C., Nandyal.

…Respondent/Judgment Debtor.

* * * * * *

This Execution Petition, coming on 07.04.2017, for hearing

before me in the presence of Sri. V.N.Satya Narayana and P.Srinivasulu

Advocates for the Petitioner/Decree Holder, and Sri B.Rangaswamy,

Assistant Government Pleader, for the Respondent/Judgment Debtor; and upon hearing the Arguments on behalf of both Parties; and on perusal of the entire E.P. Records, and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

ORDER

1.This Execution Petition is filed by the Decree Holder under order 21 Rules 22, 43 and Section 151 CPC praying the Court to attach the E.P.

Schedule Movable Properties and to bring them for sale in Public

Auction for realization of EP amount.

2.The Affidavit enclosed to the Execution Petition reads that the

Decree Holder is the Claimant in L.A.O.P., and the Judgment Debtor did not pay the compensation amount awarded to him and so sought for the above relief.

3.At the stage of Rule 22 the Court allowed the application and ordered for issuance of Rule 43 notice and attachment of E.P. Schedule

Movable Properties. Then Attachment was effected. At this stage the

Judgment Debtor got filed his counter pleading that the Execution

Petition is not maintainable in law or on facts. They state that the amount mentioned in the Execution Petition is not correct and was not calculated as per the Decree passed by this Court. It is stated that the boundaries for the E.P. Schedule Property are not correct. The worth of the E.P.

Schedule Property is more than the amount mentioned in Execution

Petition. The valuation shown by the Court Amin for the E.P. Schedule

Property is not correct and it is not assessed as per the market value. It is added that the Government is ready to deposit the E.P. amount if time is granted. Hence prayed the Court to dismiss the Execution Petition.

4.No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by both sides.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Whether the Decree Holder is entitled for the relief sought for.

7. Point:

As seen from the record there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the passing of the award. The Judgment Debtor has stated that the amount mentioned in the Execution Petition is not correct and it is not calculated as per the decree passed by the court. The only contention put forth by the Judgment Debtor is that the boundaries are not correct and the valuation for E.P. Schedule Property is shown on lesser side. It is pertinent to mention that the E.P. is filed by the claimant/Decree Holder seeking realization of amount through sale of

Movable Property. Since the relief relates to the Movable Properties The 3

Court is of the view that the pleas taken by the Judgment Debtor that the boundaries for the E.P. Schedule are not correct and they are shown on lesser side are untenable. The Judgment Debtor sought some time for the deposit of the E.P. amount. As the Judgment Debtor himself submitted that time may be granted for deposit of the E.P. amount, it can be opined without any hesitation that the Decree Holder is entitled for the relief sought for.

8.In the result the Execution Petition is allowed and Attachment that was effected on 21.09.2016 is made absolute and for filing Sale Papers by 06.07.2017.

T yped to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and

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

2017.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandikotkur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandikotkur.

Fair Order

E.P.No.15 of 2016 in

LAOP.No.202 OF 2008

Date: 28.04.2017.

EP/100017/2016

G.Ramana Reddy vs The Special Deputy Collector, SRBC, Nandyal

28 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

Present:- Smt. M. Bhavani,

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandikotkur.

Friday, the Twenty Eighth (28th) day of April, 2017.

E.P.No.17 of 2016 in L.A.O.P.No. 23 of 1995

Between

G.Ramana Reddy S/o Late Ranga Reddy, Aged 64 Years, Agriculturist, resident of Jalakanur Village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District.

…Petitioner/Decree Holder.

And

The Special Deputy Collector [L.A.O.], S.R.B.C., Nandyal.

…Respondent/Judgment Debtor.

* * * * * *

This Execution Petition, coming on 04.04.2017, for hearing

before me in the presence of Sri. N. Rama Krishnaiah and N. Suresh

Kumar, Advocates for the Petitioner/Decree Holder, and Sri

B.Rangaswamy,AssistantGovernmentPleader,forthe

Respondent/Judgment Debtor; and upon hearing the Arguments on behalf of both Parties; and on perusal of the entire E.P. Records, and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

ORDER

1.This Execution Petition is filed by the Decree Holder under order 21 Rules 22, 54, 66 and Section 151 CPC praying the Court to sell the

E.P. Schedule Property in Public Auction for realization of EP amount.

2.The Affidavit enclosed to the Execution Petition reads that the

Decree Holder is the Claimant in L.A.O.P., and the Judgment Debtor did not pay the compensation amount awarded to him and so sought for the above relief.

3.At the stage of Rule 22 the Court allowed the application and 2 ordered for issuance of Rule 54 notice and attachment of E.P. Schedule

Property. Then Attachment was effected. At this stage the J.Dr got filed his counter pleading that the Execution Petition is not maintainable in law or on facts. They state that the amount mentioned in the Execution

Petition is not correct and was not calculated as per the Decree passed by this Court. It is stated that the boundaries for the E.P. Schedule

Property are not correct. The worth of the E.P. Schedule Property is more than the amount mentioned in Execution Petition. The valuation shown by the Court Amin for the E.P. Schedule Property is not correct and it is not assessed as per the market value. It is added that the Government is ready to deposit the E.P. amount if time is granted. Hence prayed the

Court to dismiss the Execution Petition.

4.No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by both sides.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Whether the Decree Holder is entitled for the relief sought for.

7. Point:

As seen from the record there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the passing of the award. The Judgment Debtor has stated that the amount mentioned in the Execution Petition is not correct and it is not calculated as per the decree passed by the court. The only contention put forth by the Judgment Debtor is that the boundaries are not correct and the valuation for E.P. Schedule Property is shown on lesser side. The Judgment Debtor sought some time for the deposit of the

E.P. amount. To support their plea the Judgment Debtor did not file any documents evidencing that the E.P. Schedule Property was shown with wrong boundaries and is under valued. Further more they did not dispute 3 with regard to their Ownership over the E.P. Schedule Property. Hence the said pleas are untenable. As the Judgment Debtor himself submitted that time may be granted for deposit of the E.P. amount, it can be opined without any hesitation that the Decree Holder is entitled for the relief sought for.

8.In the result the Execution Petition is allowed and Attachment that was effected on 30.03.2016 is made absolute and for filing SPs and Ecs by 05.07.2017.

T yped to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and

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

2017.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandikotkur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandikotkur.

Fair Order

E.P.No.17 of 2016 in

LAOP.No.23 OF 1995

Date: 28.04.2017.

EP/100022/2016

Katha Seshamma vs The Special Deputy Collector-LAO, SRBC, Nandyal

27 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

Present:- Smt. M. Bhavani,

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandikotkur.

Thursday, the Twenty Seventh (27th) day of April, 2017.

E.P.No.22 of 2016 in L.A.O.P.No.46 of 1996

Between

Katha Seshamma, W/o Chinna Nagi Reddy, Aged 70years, Agriculturist, resident of Alaganur Village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District.

…Petitioner/Decree Holder.

And

The Special Deputy Collector [L.A.O.], S.R.B.C., Nandyal.

…Respondent/Judgment Debtor.

* * * * * *

This Execution Petition, coming on 27.03.2017, for hearing

before me in the presence of Sri. N. Rama Krishnaiah and N. Suresh

Kumar, Advocates for the Petitioner/Decree Holder, and Sri

B.Rangaswamy,AssistantGovernmentPleader,forthe

ORDER

1.This Execution Petition is filed by the Decree Holder under order 21 Rules 22, 54, 66 and Section 151 CPC praying the Court to sell the

E.P. Schedule Property in Public Auction for realization of EP amount.

2.The Affidavit enclosed to the Execution Petition reads that the

Decree Holder is the Claimant in L.A.O.P., and the Judgment Debtor did not pay the compensation amount awarded to him and so sought for the above relief.

3.At the stage of Rule 22 the Court allowed the application and ordered for issuance of Rule 54 notice and attachment of E.P. Schedule

Property. Then Attachment was effected. At this stage the Judgment

Debtor got filed his counter pleading that the Execution Petition is not maintainable in law or on facts. They state that the amount mentioned in the Execution Petition is not correct and was not calculated as per the

Decree passed by this Court. It is stated that the boundaries for the E.P.

Schedule Property are not correct. The worth of the E.P. Schedule

Property is more than the amount mentioned in Execution Petition. The valuation shown by the Court Amin for the E.P. Schedule Property is not correct and it is not assessed as per the market value. It is added that the Government is ready to deposit the E.P. amount if time is granted.

Hence prayed the Court to dismiss the Execution Petition.

4.No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by both sides.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Whether the Decree Holder is entitled for the relief sought for.

7. Point:

As seen from the record there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the passing of the award. The Judgment Debtor has stated that the amount mentioned in the Execution Petition is not correct and it is not calculated as per the decree passed by the court. The only contention put forth by the Judgment Debtor is that the boundaries are not correct and the valuation for E.P. Schedule Property is shown on lesser side. The Judgment Debtor sought some time for the deposit of the

E.P. amount. To support their plea the Judgment Debtor did not file any documents evidencing that the E.P. Schedule Property was shown with 3 wrong boundaries and is under valued. Further more they did not dispute with regard to their Ownership over the E.P. Schedule Property. Hence the said pleas are untenable. As the Judgment Debtor himself submitted that time may be granted for deposit of the E.P. amount, it can be opined without any hesitation that the Decree Holder is entitled for the relief sought for.

8.In the result the Execution Petition is allowed and Attachment that was effected on 09.08.2016 is made absolute and for filing SPs and Ecs by 09.06.2017.

T yped to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27 th day of April,

2017.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandikotkur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nandikotkur.

Fair Order

E.P.No.22 of 2016 in

LAOP.No.46 OF 1996

Date: 27.04.2017.

OS/100007/2017

Branch Manager vs Kakanur Sankara Reddy

28 Apr 2017

Order Record 8 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/100015/2016	Racherla Yellaiah vs The Special Deputy Collector-LAO, SRBC, Nandyal	28 Apr 2017	Copy of Order	—
EP/100017/2016	G.Ramana Reddy vs The Special Deputy Collector, SRBC, Nandyal	28 Apr 2017	Copy of Order	—
EP/100038/2016	S. Habeeb vs C. Sudheer Varma	28 Apr 2017	Copy of Order	—
OS/100007/2017	Branch Manager vs Kakanur Sankara Reddy	28 Apr 2017	Copy of Judgement	—
EP/100022/2016	Katha Seshamma vs The Special Deputy Collector-LAO, SRBC, Nandyal	27 Apr 2017	Copy of Order	—
OS/100032/2016	Y. Pulla Reddy vs G. Balaiah	27 Apr 2017	Copy of Order	—
EP/100065/2015	Smt. Maheswaramma vs The Spl.Dy.Collector, L.A. HNSS Unit IV, Kurnool	26 Apr 2017	Copy of Order	—
OS/100008/2015	K.Upendra Reddy vs B.Sarath Kumar Reddy	09 Mar 2017	Copy of Judgement	—

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt. M. Bhavani handled?

Smt. M. Bhavani has handled 8 court orders since 2017 at Senior Civil Judge`s Court, Nandikotkur (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 4 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt. M. Bhavani hear?

Based on available records, Smt. M. Bhavani primarily handles Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Original Suits) at Senior Civil Judge`s Court, Nandikotkur (Taluka).

Where is Smt. M. Bhavani currently posted?

Smt. M. Bhavani is posted as Senior Civil Judge at Senior Civil Judge`s Court, Nandikotkur (Taluka), Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt. M. Bhavani available online?

Yes. 6 judgments by Smt. M. Bhavani are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt. M. Bhavani dispose cases?

Smt. M. Bhavani disposes approximately 4 cases per month, based on 8 orders handled over their tenure at Senior Civil Judge`s Court, Nandikotkur (Taluka).

Since when is Smt. M. Bhavani serving?

Smt. M. Bhavani has been serving at Senior Civil Judge`s Court, Nandikotkur (Taluka) since 2017.

Case Types

EP 63%

OS 38%

Posting History

Apr 2017 — May 2017

Senior Civil Judge · 7 orders
Mar 2017 — Mar 2017

Senior Civil Judge · 1 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Smt A.Sobha Rani

Senior Civil Judge

139 orders

Smt V.Divya

Junior Civil Judge

891 orders

← View all judges at Senior Civil Judge`s Court, Nandikotkur (Taluka)

Smt. M. Bhavani

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

… DEFENDANTS.

* * * * * *

J U D G M E N T

NANDIKOTKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

NANDIKOTKUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

… DEFENDANTS.

* * * * * *

NANDIKOTKUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

ORDER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

ORDER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

ORDER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDIKOTKUR.

… DEFENDANT.

* * * * * *

J U D G M E N T

NANDIKOTKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NANDIKOTKUR.

*** * * * * ***

*** * * * * ***

*** * * * * ***