M Srinivasulu Naik

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur

VI Addl District Court, Markapur · Prakasham · Andhra Pradesh

M Srinivasulu Naik, Senior Civil Judge, Markapur, is posted at VI Addl District Court, Markapur, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,539 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, H, EP cases.

1,539

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

SC/320/2018 Acquitted

State Inspector of Police, Giddalur P.S vs Kulari @ Kilari Subbaiah

16 Jun 2020

1 SC.NO. 320 of 2018

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

MARKAPUR.

Present:- Sri M.Srinivasulu Naik Assistant Sessions Judge

Tuesday, this the 16th day of June, 2020

SESSIONS CASE No. 320/2018

(P.R.C.No. 9/2018 of A.J.F.C.M. Court, Giddalur in Cr.No. 121/2017 of Bestavaripeta P.S)

Complainant : State: Inspector of Police,

Giddalur Police station

Description of the Accused :

Kulari @ Kilari Subbaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, age about 38 years, Yadava by caste, Galijerugulla village, Bestavaripeta mandal, Prakasam District.

Charge : U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec.

3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act.

Plea of the accused : Not guilty

Finding of the Court : Not guilty

Sentence or Order : 16-06-2020

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the ofences punishable U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act and he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be remain in force for a period of 6 (Six) months. This case property M.Os 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

DATES OF

Occurrence : 11-10-2017

Complaint : 11-10-2017

Committal order : 02-07-2018

Appearance : 11-10-2017

Commencement of trial : 20-01-2020

Close of trial : 12-02-2020

Judgment : 16-06-2020 2 SC.NO. 320 of 2018

EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY :

In this entire case record was received on 21-12-2018 from the

Hon'ble District & Sessions Judge's Court, Ongole. Charge was framed

on 18-12-2019 and summons was issued to listed witnesses fxing schedule for trial. The prosecution side evidence commenced from 20- 01-2020 and the same was closed on 12-02-2020. The prosecution examined Pws 1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P15 and M.Os.1 and 2. On 03-03-2020 accused was examined under section 313 of

Cr.P.C, and they denied the ofences and counsel for accused, reported no defence evidence. On 15-06-2020 heard arguments through blue

Jeans video conference. Judgment pronounced on 16.06.2020. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Sri M.Srinivasulu Naik

Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur.

3 SC.NO. 320 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

MARKAPUR.

Present:- Sri M.Srinivasulu Naik Assistant Sessions Judge

Tuesday, this the 16th day of June, 2020

SESSIONS CASE No. 320/2018

(P.R.C.No. 9/2018 of A.J.F.C.M. Court, Giddalur in Cr.No. 121/2017 of Bestavaripeta P.S)

Complainant : State: Inspector of Police,

Giddalur Police station

Description of the Accused :

Kulari @ Kilari Subbaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, age about 38 years, Yadava by caste, Galijerugulla village, Bestavaripeta mandal, Prakasam District.

Charge : U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec.

3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act.

Plea of the accused : Not guilty

Finding of the Court : Not guilty

Sentence or Order : 16-06-2020

The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor conducted the prosecution case for State and Sri Y. Vijay Vardhan Advocate for

Accused before this Court.

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Bestavaripeta P.S fled charge sheet in

Cr.No. 121/2017 against the accused, for the ofences punishable

U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act.

4 SC.NO. 320 of 2018

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the PW1 is resident of Galijerugulla village and living by doing agricultural coolie works. PW1 got 3 daughters. Among them deceased is the youngest and studying 9th Class in P.V.Puram High School. Daily the deceased and the accused daughter Nagaveni used to go to the school by walk.

On 11-10-2017 morning at 08-50 hours while the accused was proceeding towards P.V.Puram village on his numberless TVS XL moped, then accused daughter Kilari Nagaveni requested to accused to drop her at the school, then accused took both the girls deceased and his daughter Nagaveni on his vehicle ofence road i.e., Thamatam

Subbareddy feld near Galijerugulla village, then the skirt of deceased fell into the rear wheel of the said moped, due to the rash and negligent driving and with high speed of the vehicle the skirt of deceased was rolled in the wheel and rounded to her neck, due to that both the girls deceased and accused daughter Nagaveni fell on the road and sustained injuries at 09-10 hours. Then the deceased sustained injury on her fore-head, skirt was rounded to her neck, became unconscious state and immediately the accused informed to the PW1 and LW2 Annapureddy Chinna Kondaiah, then the PW1, LW2

Annapureddy Chinna Kondaiah and PW2 rushed to the spot and found the condition of deceased and while proceeding towards Cumbum for treatment and on the way, the deceased lost her breath. The accused daughter Nagaveni sustained injuries to her left knee. Due to the rash and negligent driving of accused, incident was occurred and the deceased died and accused is the responsible person about the death of the deceased. On receipt of the report of PW1, PW11 registered the same as a case in Cr.NO. 121/2017 under section 304(A) of IPC of

Bestavaripeta P.S on 11-10-2017 at 13-00 hours and submitted the copies of F.I.R to all ofcers concerned.

5 SC.NO. 320 of 2018

During the course of investigation PW11 visited the scene of ofence on 11-10-2017, inspected the same and prepared scene observation report, seized Blue color Skirt of deceased and duly attested by PW6 and LW9 U.Balaiah. PW11 drew the rough sketch of scene of ofence. Subsequently PW11 took the photographs of the deceased, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW6, LW9 U.Balaiah and PW7 and sent the corpse for autopsy. Altered the section of law into 304-II of IPC from 304(A) of IPC on 03-11-2017. During the course of investigation PW12 took up further investigation into this case. PW12 examined PW4 and PW5, recorded their detailed statements under section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. vide Part-II of

Case Diary. During the course of further investigation PW12 arrested the accused on 10-11-2017 at 10-30 hours and sent him for judicial remand, verifed the crime vehicle records and found the crime vehicle registration number is AP27BR9547. PW12 added the Sec. 3 r/w 181 of

M.V.A ct into this case. PW10 who inspected the crime vehicle and issued accident report, concluded that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle AP27BR9547. After completion of investigation, PW12 fled charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3.The learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur has taken cognizance for the ofences U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act against the accused under P.R.C. 9/2018. He furnished copies of documents to the accused as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Since the ofence under section 304 (II) of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Giddalur committed the case to the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Ongole as required U/Sec.209 of Cr.P.C which in turn

6 SC.NO. 320 of 2018 numbered the case as SC. No. 320/2018 and made over the same to this Court for disposal as per law.

5.On appearance of accused was examined U/Sec.228 of Cr.P.C and charge U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act were framed against the accused, explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.At the event of trial, PW1 to PW12 were examined and Exs.P1 to

P15 and M.Os.1 and 2 are marked. The evidence of LW9 U.Balaiah and

LW12 Dr.G.B.Raja Kumar are given up by learned APP.

7.After closure of prosecution case, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C read over and explained incriminating material coming through the prosecution witnesses and that he denied, stated no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of learned A.P.P for the state and Sri

Y.Vijaya Vardhan Advocate for the Accused.

9.Now the point for determination is:“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused, for the ofences punishable U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act beyond all reasonable doubt” ?

10. The case of the prosecution is that on On 11-10-2017 morning at 08-50 hours while the accused was proceeding towards P.V.Puram village on his numberless TVS XL moped, then accused daughter Kilari

Nagaveni requested to accused to drop her at the school, then accused took both the girls deceased and his daughter Nagaveni on his vehicle ofence road i.e., Thamatam Subbareddy feld near Galijerugulla village, then the skirt of deceased fell into the rear wheel of the said moped, due to the rash and negligent driving and with high speed of the vehicle the skirt of deceased was rolled in the wheel and rounded 7 SC.NO. 320 of 2018 to her neck, due to that both the girls deceased and accused daughter

Nagaveni fell on the road and sustained injuries at 09-10 hours. Then the deceased sustained injury on her fore-head, skirt was rounded to her neck, became unconscious state and immediately the accused informed to the PW1 and LW2 Annapureddy Chinna Kondaiah, then the

PW1, LW2 Annapureddy Chinna Kondaiah and PW2 rushed to the spot and found the condition of deceased and while proceeding towards

Cumbum for treatment and on the way, the deceased lost her breath.

This Court framed charge U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 181 of

M.V.Act.

11. To prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined

Pws 1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 and M.Os.1 and 2. The PW1 is deface-complainant, PW1 to PW5 are eye witnesses, PW6 and PW7 are mediators, PW8 and PW9 are Medical Ofcers, PW10 is Motor

Vehicle Inspector, PW11 and PW12 are Investigating Ofcers. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 in report, Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2,

Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3, Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4, Ex.P5 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5, Ex.P6 is scene observation report, Ex.P7 is inquest report, Ex.P8 is report given by him

dt. 17-12-2017, Ex.P9 is postmortem certifcate, Ex.P10 is fnal opinion,

Ex.P11 is Motor Vehicle Inspector report, Ex.P12 is complaint, Ex.P13 is frst information report, Ex.P14 is rough sketch and Ex.P15 is Alteration memo, M.O.1 is Chunni and M.O.2 is photos and C.D.

12. The PW1 (A.Rathamma) who is the mother of deceased deposed that the accused is her relative, the deceased was died due to fell down from the T.V.S XL Motor Cycle, at the time the police were obtained her signature on written papers. She do not know the contents of said complaint. At this stage the learned APP sought 8 SC.NO. 320 of 2018 permission to declare the witness as hostile and in the cross- examination, the learned APP made suggestions to that efect that the accident was occurred due to rash and neglect driving of the accused, as the PW1 compromised with the accused thereby deposing false.

But witness denied the said suggestions.

13.PW2 to PW5 namely A.Narasimhulu, G.Narasaiah, A.Krishnaiah and C.Kesavulu who are the relatives of the deceased and accused, deposed before this court that they do not anything about this case.

Police never examined them and never recorded their statements. At this stage the learned APP sought permission to declare the witnesses as hostile and in the cross-examination the learned APP made suggestions to that efect that the accident was occurred due to rash and neglect driving of the accused, as the PW2 to PW5 compromised with the accused thereby deposing false. But witnesses denied the said suggestions.

14.Hostile Witness : The expression 'Hostile Witness' is nowhere used in the Evidence Act. From the language of Section 154 of

Evidence Act, it can be understood who is a hostile witness. A hostile witness is one who does not give evidence what the party calling him wished him to give. A party is expected to speak truth and not always in support of a party even for no truth and thus cannot be branded so casually as hostile even he is truthful witness.

15.In a decision of the Hon'ble Superme Court of India in between Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2008 (4) SCC 582 wherein the Apex Court held as under - “.....We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court 9 SC.NO. 320 of 2018 should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot aford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more efective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. ….”

16.In view of the hostility of PW1 to PW5 the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the charge U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act.

17.The case of the prosecution is that on 11-10-2017 morning at 08-50 hours while the accused was proceeding towards P.V.Puram village on his numberless TVS XL moped, then accused daughter Kilari

Nagaveni requested to accused to drop her at the school, then accused took both the girls deceased and his daughter Nagaveni on his vehicle ofence road i.e., Thamatam Subbareddy feld near Galijerugulla village, then the skirt of deceased fell into the rear wheel of the said moped, due to the rash and negligent driving and with high speed of the vehicle the skirt of deceased was rolled in the wheel and rounded to her neck, due to that both the girls deceased and accused daughter

PW1, LW2 Annapureddy Chinna Kondaiah and PW2 rushed to the spot 10 SC.NO. 320 of 2018 and found the condition of deceased and while proceeding towards

Cumbum for treatment and on the way, the deceased lost her breath.

The accused daughter Nagaveni sustained injuries to her left knee.

Due to the rash and negligent driving of accused, incident was occurred and the deceased died and accused is the responsible person about the death of the deceased. This Court framed charge U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act.

18. All the prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW5 never stated anything against the accused that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of incident and he drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to his negligent driving the incident was happened. When there is no evidence against the accused as all the above witnesses turned hostile and never stated anything against the accused and the evidence of PW8 to PW12 who are the ofcial witnesses i.e., Doctor, Police generally they supported the case of prosecution. The PW6 and PW7 who are the scene observation and inquest panchayathdars they deposed that on 11-10-2017 at about 01- 45 p.m police were seized pink colour Chunni and PW7 said that on 11- 10-2017 at 02-30 p.m S.I of police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The evidence of PW6 and PW7 also no proof to show that due to rash and negligent driving of the accused the deceased was fell down from the motor cycle and sustained injuries then died. Further the PW8 Dr.J.Rajendra Prasad deposed before this court that on 07.09.2015 to till date. I received Skin bit measuring 17X2.5X0.5 Cms cut section of Gray White of around Neck of deceased for histo Pathology examination.

19.PW9 Dr.B.V.Ranga Rao deposed before this court that on 11.10.2017 at about 4.45 P.M he conducted P.M.E over the dead body 11 SC.NO. 320 of 2018 of A. Meghana and found the internal and external injuries as mentioned in the P.M.E certifcate. He gave opinion that the deceased would have died 8.00 to 10.00 hours prior to his examination. At the time of P.M.E he collected (1) Hyoid bone intact. (2) Skin around the

Neck and send the same to the RIMS, Ongole for expert opinion. In turn he received the fnal opinion from the RIMS, Ongole that Hyoid bone intact no injury to surrounding of the soft tissue. Skin around the Neck opinion: Microscopic examination sections studied show Skin with heeped up epidermis, congestion and breaks in the fbro collgenous bundles of dermis. Suggestive of anti mortem compression injury of

Skin. Further he gave fnal opinion about cause of death:- approximate time of death is 8.00 to 10.00 hours prior to his examination.

20.PW10 CH.Rambabu - Motor Vehicle Inspector deposed before this court that on 08-11-2017 at about 10-00 a.m he conducted Motor

Cycle bearing NO. AP 27BR9547 and found that no damages.

21.PW11 and PW12 A.Sasi Kumar S.I of Police and V.Sriram –

Inspector of Police respectively deposed in one voice that the accused drive the crime vehicle bearing NO. AP 27BR9547 in a rash and negligent manner due to which the deceased fell down and sustained injuries over the her forehead and died.

22. Section 304 (II) of the IPC says ‘whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fne, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

12 SC.NO. 320 of 2018

23. Perused the evidence of prosecution witnesses the PW1 who is the mother of the deceased, she deposed that she do not know the contents of Ex.P1 complaint. Further she deposed that she do not know who is the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of the incident. The remaining witnesses PW2 to PW5 who are independent eye witnesses they did not supported the prosecution version to show that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle as on the date of incident.

Due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused the alleged incident was happened. When there is no incriminating evidence against the accused to connect the accused with this ofence. Further, the prosecution registered the case under section 304-II of IPC. There are no previous enmities in between accused and deceased family.

Further, all the material witnesses turned hostile. In these circumstances the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused, for the ofences U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act.

Further, except the evidence of PW8 to PW12 who are the Medical

Ofcer, and Police , no other witnesses supported the case of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused as stated by the prosecution witnesses PW8 to PW12. The main witnesses PW1 to PW5 they were turned hostile, they did not supported the case of prosecution and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. the Medical

Ofcer, V.R.O, S.I of Police and Inspector of Police are ofcial witnesses and their evidence cannot be taken into consideration to connect the accused, U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act. Therefore,

I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the ofences U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act and the accused is entitled for acquittal for beneft of doubt. The point is answered accordingly.

13 SC.NO. 320 of 2018

24. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the ofences punishable U/Sec.304 (II) of IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act and he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be remain in force for a period of 6 (Six) months. This case property M.Os 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16 th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- Sri M.Srinivasulu Naik

Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:-

PW1: A.Rathamma

PW2: A.Narasimhulu

PW3: G.Narasimha

PW4: A.Krishnaiah

PW5: Ch.Kesavulu

PW6: R.Subbarayudu

PW7: D.Tirupathaiah

PW8: Dr.J.Rajendra Prasad

PW9: Dr. B.V.Ranga Rao

PW10: CH. Rambabu – Motor Vehicle Inspector

PW11: A.Sasi Kumar – Sub-Inspector

PW12: V.Sriram – Circle Inspector.

For Defence:- NIL –

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 in report.

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

14 SC.NO. 320 of 2018

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3.

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4.

Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5.

Ex.P6: Scene observation report.

Ex.P7: Inquest report.

Ex.P8: Report given by him dt. 17-12-2017.

Ex.P9: Postmortem certifcate.

Ex.P10: Final opinion.

Ex.P11: Motor Vehicle Inspector report.

Ex.P12: Complaint.

Ex.P13: First information report.

Ex.P14: Rough sketch.

Ex.P15: Alteration memo.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Chunni. M.O.2: Photos and C.D.

Sd/- Sri M.Srinivasulu Naik

A.S.J.,

Copies submitted to:-

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

Copies to:-

2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole

3. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole

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

5. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Markapur

6. Ofce copy.

OS/124/2016

Idamakanti Venkata Reddy vs Avula Sankar Reddy

28 May 2020

OS.NO. 124 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::MARKAPUR

Present : Sri M. Srinivasulu Naik

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur

Thursday, this the 28th day of May, 2020

OS.NO. 124 of 2016

Between:

Idamakanti Venkata Reddy, S/o. Chinna Venkata

Reddy, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

Vengalareddy Palle village and Post, Giddalur mandal, Prakasam District.

….Plaintif

Vs.,

Avula Sankar Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, aged about 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, 1st ward,

Alamuru village, Panyam mandal, Kurnool

District.

….Defendant

This suit is coming on 20-03-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Bala Ranga Reddy Advocate for the plaintiff, and

Sri P. Rama Chandra Advocate for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1) The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for the realization of an amount of Rs.7,41,787/- together with future interest and costs.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff submits that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 4,88,400/- on 24-04-2012 from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family expenses and he executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Vengalareddy Palle village of Giddalur mandal, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ of 24% per annum 2 OS.NO. 124 of 2016 either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. On being demanded by the plaintiff, the defendant paid Rs. 500/- on 20-04-2015 as part payment and the said payment endorsement was written on the said promissory note back side by the defendant with his own hand writing.

Again the plaintiff requested and demanded the defendant to pay the remaining balance amount with interest, but the defendant did not pay the amount willfully. As there is no alternative for recovery of suit promissory note amount and interest from the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has no other option, except filing of this suit. Hence this suit.

3) The written statement filed on behalf of the defendant are as follows:

He denied all the material allegations made in the plaint and he submits that there is no cause of action to file the suit. The defendant never borrowed an amount of Rs. 4,88,400/- on 24-04-2012 from the plaintiff and executed suit promissory note at

Vengalreddypalle village of Giddalur mandal. The defendant never paid an amount of Rs. 500/- on 20-04-2015 as part payment towards the suit promissory note and endorsed the same on the reverse of the suit promissory note. Further submitted that the plaintiff and the defendant are co-brothers along with others. The father-in-law of the defendant and plaintiff belongs to Alamuru village and there are some landed properties in Alamuru village, which belongs to the father-in-law of the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant is looking after the welfare of the family of his father-in-law and he is cultivating the lands of her father-in-law. In the connection of his share in agricultural produce of the landed properties and lease amount of the lands some disputes arose between the plaintiff and defendant. Due to the said 3 OS.NO. 124 of 2016 disputes, the plaintiff forged the suit promissory note and the alleged part-payment and fabricated the same with his henchmen allegedly stated that the suit promissory note was executed by the defendant at

Vengalreddypalle village of Giddalru mandal and filed this suit to harass the defendant and for wrongfully gain. Thereby he prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4)Basing on the above pleadings, my predecessor framed the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5)During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. On behalf of the defendant, DW1 was examined and no documents are marked.

6)Heard arguments on both sides.

Issue No.1:

7)The claim of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 4,88,400/- on 24-04-2012 from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family expenses and he executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Vengalareddy Palle village of Giddalur mandal, agreeing to pay the same with interest @ of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. On being demanded by the plaintiff, the defendant paid Rs. 500/- on 20-04-2015 as part payment and the said payment endorsement was written on the said promissory note back side by the defendant with his own hand writing.

4 OS.NO. 124 of 2016

8)To prove the contention of the plaintiff, on behalf of the plaintiff himself examined as PW1, and entire contents of his chief affidavit are replica of plaint averments. In the cross examination he deposed that the defendant is native of Alamuru village of Kurnool

District. It is true that himself and one Sankar Reddy both are co- brothers. It is true that his father-in-law has owned the landed properties at Alamuru village.

9)To prove the case of the plaintiff apart from the evidence of

PW1, one P. Venkata Ramesh Kumar Reddy examined as PW2 who is the attester under Exs.A1. He deposed that the defendant borrowed

Rs. 4,88,400/- on 24-04-2012 for his family necessities. Further he deposed that the defendant himself scribe of suit promissory note, after receipt of Rs. 4,88,400/- the defendant signed on suit promissory note. In the cross examination he deposed that, native of plaintiff is

Vengalareddypalli village of Giddalur mandal. He is native of Giddalur.

The distance in between Giddalur to Vengalareddypalli village is about 5 K.M. The plaintiff is his father-in-law. He know the defendant is native of Alamuru of Kurnool District. The plaintiff and defendant are co- brothers. The father-in-law of plaintiff and defendant had son namely

Rama Subba Reddy. Their properties situated at Alamuru. Except this nothing was elicited to disprove and discard the evidence of PW2.

10)The evidence of PW1 and PW2, when compared with the

Ex.A1 document the defendant borrowed Rs. 4,88,400/- under the

Ex.A1, agreed to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. As per evidence of PW1 and PW2 for the family necessities of the defendant, he executed suit promissory note Ex.A1. Later when the 5 OS.NO. 124 of 2016 plaintiff demanded Ex.A1 amount to the defendant then he paid Rs.

500/- as part payment and endorsed Ex.A2 on the reverse side of

Ex.A1. On other hand the defendant in his written statement stated that “the defendant never borrowed the alleged amount from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is enemy to the defendant and due to enmity the plaintiff developed grudge against the defendant and hatched a plan to take revenge against the defendant and got prepared the suit promissory note with the help of his relatives and friends forged the signature of this defendant and created suit promissory note. Before filing of the suit the plaintiff did not issued any legal notice to the defendant. The plaintiff not entitled to any relief in this suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendant does not require such a huge amount of Rs.

4,88,400/-. The alleged attester is the son-in-law of plaintiff. To prove the said contention on behalf of the defendant himself examined as

DW1, and entire contents of his chief affidavit averments are replica of written statement contents. In the cross examination he deposed that he know the contents of his chief affidavit. The counsel for the plaintiff shown the vakalath of defendant then the witness denied his signature on it, likewise shown the written statement then the witness admitted his signature on it, shown the suit promissory note then he denied his signature on it, shown the suit summons then he admitted his signature on it.

11)On perusal of oral and documentary evidence of the PW1 and PW2 and Ex.A1 and A2 proved that the defendant borrowed Ex.A1 amount from the plaintiff. Later he failed to discharge the same to the plaintiff and when the plaintiff demanded Ex.A1 amount then the 6 OS.NO. 124 of 2016 defendant himself endorsed part payment endorsement under Ex.A2 on the reverse side of Ex.A1.

12) The defendant in his written statement has taken a plea that the suit promissory note is a rank forged one. The PW.1 and PW.2 have clearly and categorically deposed regarding the execution of

Ex.A.1 promissory note by the defendant in his favour on 24-04-2012.

Mere denial is not sufficient and the defendant has not taken any steps for filing petition U/Sec. 45 of Indian Evidence Act for sending the

Ex.A.1 for the expert opinion. In 1999 (3) A.L.D. P.446 in between

P.Subba Rao Vs. S.Pulla Rao, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

has held that when plea of forgery is taken by defendant and when the initial burden is discharged by the plaintiff by showing that the document was executed, the burden shifts on to the defendant to prove that the document is forged. In case of failure of discharge of burden by the defendant, the suit has to be decreed. The above citation squarely applies to the present case on hand.

13)In the present case also the defendant has not taken any steps for sending Exs.A1 and A2 to the expert. Therefore the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Exs.A1 and A2 when clubbed together the case for the plaintiff is proved that the defendant executed Ex.A1 on 24-04- 2012 and borrowed the amount of Rs. 4,88,400/- agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. Except the oral evidence of

DW1, there are no documentary proof filed by the defendant. Therefore the plea of defendant not proved. Thereby the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount with interest to the plaintiff. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

7 OS.NO. 124 of 2016

Issue No.2:

14)In the result, suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.7,41,787/- (Rupees Seven lakhs Forty one thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven only) with subsequent interest on principal amount of Rs. 4,88,400/- (Rupees Four lakhs Eighty eight thousand and Four hundred only) at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suit i.e., 26-08-2016 till the date of decree, and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28th day of May, 2020.

Senior Civil Judge,

Markapur.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintif:

PW1: I. Venkata Reddy

PW2: P.Venkata Ramesh Kumar Reddy

For Defendant:

DW1: A. Sankar Reddy

Documents marked

For Plaintif:

Ex.A1: Suit promissory note dated 24-04-2012.

Ex.A2: Part payment endorsement dt. 20-04-2015.

For Defendant: -Nil -

S.C.J.,

IP/37/2016

Illuri Koteswar Reddy vs Byragani Mahaboo

17 Jun 2020

IP.NO. 37 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::MARKAPUR

Present : Sri M. Srinivasulu Naik

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur

Wednesday, this the 17th day of June, 2020

IP. NO. 37 of 2016

Between:

Illuri Koteswar Reddy, S/o. Chinna Bayapu Reddy (late), Hindu, aged about 55 years, retired Army,

R/o. Door NO. 2-112, Main Bazar, K.S.Palle village and Post, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasam District.

…. Petitioner

Vs.,

1.Byragani Mahaboo, @ Mahaboob called as Babu,

S/o. Venkataiah, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Ex

Army, business, pensioner, R/o. Door NO. 5-12 118/75b6, Mohan Nagar, “Byragani Complex”,

Kongalaveedu Road, Giddalur town and mandal,

Prakasam District.

2.Kolli. Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Bala Rangaiah, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Business, resident of Door

NO.70-15-127, Prasanti Nagar, Giddalur town and mandal, Prakasam District. …. Respondents

This petition is coming on 15.06.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.V.Bhaskar Rao Advocate for Petitioner, and respondents 1 and 2 are remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

O R D E R // //

1.This is a petition filed under section 9 of Provincial Insolvency

IP.NO. 37 of 2016 petition schedule property to vest the petition schedule property in the hands of the official receiver for adjudication and with costs.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows :

The petitioner submits that on 27-05-2014, the 1st respondent borrowed Rs. 2,00,000/- from the petitioner and executed promissory note agreeing to repayment same with interest at 24% p.a, on several demands by the petitioner, the 1st respondent failed to pay the same, the petitioner filed in O.S.No. 295/2015 on the file of J.C.J.Court at

Giddalur and in the said suit, he obtained attachment of the petitioner schedule property in I.A.NO.961/2015 and obtained exparte decree against the 1st respondent on 19-02-2016 and attachment was made absolute, but unfortunately while mentioning the door NO. of the petition schedule property a minor mistake was crept in and taking advantage of the same, the 1st respondent colluded with the 2nd respondent and her husband and hatched an evil plan nominally executed registered document NO. 3732/2016 in the name of the 2nd respondent on 20-05-2016 in respect of the schedule property of the 1st respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has no other option except filing of this petition. Hence, the petition.

3.The respondents 1 and 2 did not appear before this court. Hence, they were set ex-parte.

4.At the event of enquiry, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

5.Heard arguments through blue jeans.

6.Now the point for determination is that : “Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for”?

IP.NO. 37 of 2016

7.In this case, the petitioner sought for an order to declare the 1st respondent as an insolvent and for the 1st respondent colluded with the 2nd respondent and her husband and hatched an evil plan nominally executed registered document NO. 3732/2016 on the name of the 2nd respondent on 20-05-2016 in respect of the schedule property of the 1st respondent.

8.The evidence of PW1 shows that on 27-05-2014, the 1st respondent borrowed Rs. 2,00,000/- from the petitioner and executed promissory note agreeing to repayment same with interest at 24% p.a, on several demands by the petitioner, the 1st respondent failed to pay the same, the petitioner filed in O.S.No. 295/2015 on the file of

J.C.J.Court at Giddalur and in the said suit, he obtained attachment of the petitioner schedule property in I.A.NO.961/2015 and obtained exparte decree against the 1st respondent on 19-02-2016 and attachment was made absolute, but unfortunately while mentioning the door NO. of the petition schedule property a minor mistake was crept in and taking advantage of the same, the 1st respondent colluded with the 2nd respondent and her husband and hatched an evil plan nominally executed registered document NO. 3732/2016 in the name of the 2nd respondent on 20-05-2016 in respect of the schedule property of the 1st respondent. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. His evidence shows that he lent Rs. 2,00,000/- to the 1st respondent. It is evidenced by Ex.P1 is certified copy of decree in O.S.NO. 295/2015 along with lodgement schedule. Ex.P2 is registration copy of registered sale deed dt. 20-05-2016 executed by Maboo in favour of Vijaya Lakshmi. His evidence further shows that respondent No.1 created registered sale deed bearing

IP.NO. 37 of 2016 document No.3732/2016 dt. 20-05-2016 in favour of 2nd respondent to defeat debt of PW1. He filed certified copy of said sale deed which was marked as Ex.P2. According to PW1, the respondent No.1 created sale deed to defeat his debt. It is for the respondent No.1 to come and say that his intention is not to defeat the debt of PW1. It is for the respondent No.2 to come and say that she purchased the property by paying consideration and the sale transaction is bonafied one. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. Therefore, this court has no option except to believe the version of PW1. His evidence shows that respondent No.1 with an intention to defeat his (PW1) debt created registered sale deed bearing No.3732/2016 dt. 20-05-2016 in favour of respondent No.2. As per section 6 of Provincial Insolvency Act, where a debtor transfers his property with an intention to defeat the debt of creditor, the debtor is said to have committed act of insolvency. In the present case, it is proved that respondent No.1 transferred his property in favour of respondent No.2 with an intention to defeat the debt of

PW1 and thereby committed act of insolvency. In view of these reasons, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

The point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed with costs and 1st respondent is hereby declared as insolvent. The property covered under registered sale deed bearing No.3732/2016 dt. 20-05-2016 on the file of Sub-Registrar is annulled and shall vest with Official

Receiver. The respondent No.1 is given three months time to discharge the debt of the petitioner.

IP.NO. 37 of 2016

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 17 th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik

Senior Civil Judge,

Markapur.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

PW.1: Illuri Koteswar Reddy -- Ex parte –

Documents Marked

For petitioner:

Ex.P1: Certified copy of decree in O.S.NO. 295/2015 along with lodgment schedule.

Ex.P2: Registration copy of registered sale deed dt. 20-05-2016 executed by Mabu in favour of Vijaya Lakshmi.

For respondents: --- NIL –

Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik

S.C.J.,

IP.NO. 37 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::MARKAPUR

Present : Sri M. Srinivasulu Naik

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur

Wednesday, this the 17th day of June, 2020

IP. NO. 37 of 2016

Between:

Illuri Koteswar Reddy, S/o. Chinna Bayapu Reddy (late), Hindu, aged about 55 years, retired Army,

R/o. Door NO. 2-112, Main Bazar, K.S.Palle village and Post, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasam District. …. Petitioner

Vs.,

1.Byragani Mahaboo, @ Mahaboob called as Babu,

S/o. Venkataiah, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Ex

Army, business, pensioner, R/o. Door NO. 5-12 118/75b6, Mohan Nagar, “Byragani Complex”,

Kongalaveedu Road, Giddalur town and mandal,

Prakasam District.

2.Kolli. Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Bala Rangaiah, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Business, resident of Door

NO.70-15-127, Prasanti Nagar, Giddalur town and mandal, Prakasam District. …. Respondents

This is a petition filed under section 9 of Provincial Insolvency

Act to declare the 1st respondent as an insolvent to set aside the alleged sale deed dt. 20-05-2016 vide in No. 3732/2016 executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent relating to the petition schedule property to vest the petition schedule property in the hands of the official receiver for adjudication and with costs.

Cause of Action: The cause of action for this petition arose on 27- 05-2014 when the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff and self executed printed pronote at Giddalur town and in the month of May 2016, when the 1st respondent left the local limits of his permanent resident and on 20-05-2016, when the 1st respondent nominally executed registered document in favour of the 2nd respondent in

IP.NO. 37 of 2016 respect to petition schedule property and at Giddalur, which is within the jurisdiction of this court.

Court fee: A court fee of Rs. 10/- is paid under Art - II(i)(ii) schedule

II of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

1. that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed with costs,

2. that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed with costs and 1st respondent is hereby declared as insolvent. The property covered under registered sale deed bearing No.3732/2016 dt. 20- 05-2016 on the file of Sub-Registrar is annulled and shall vest with

Official Receiver. The respondent No.1 is given three months time to discharge the debt of the petitioner; and

3. that the respondents do pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 77/- towards costs of the petition. - Petition schedule is hereto attached - Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 17 th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik

Senior Civil Judge,

Markapur.

// TABLE OF COSTS //

ForFor S.No.Particulars Petitioner (Rs.)Respondents (Rs.)

1.Stamp on Vakalat2.00

2.Stamp on Plaint10.00Exparte

3. Stamp on Process 65.00 Total 77-00

Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik

S.C.J.,

OS/184/2018

Perumalla Ranga Subbamma and another vs Vutukuri Meenaiah and 13 others

25 Jun 2020

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: MARKAPUR

PRESENT : Sri M.Srinivasulu Naik,

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur

This the 25th day of June, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 184 of 2018

Between:

1) Perumalla Ranga Subbamma, W/o. Late

Chenchaiah, aged about 80 years, Hindu,

2) Perumalla Suresh Babu, S/o. Late Chenchaiah, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Business,

Both are residents of Thimmapuram village,

Dornal Mandal, Prakasam Dist., ….Plaintiffs

Vs.,

1) Vutukuri Meenaiah, S/o. Rama Swamy, aged about 85 years, Hindu, Business, KG.Road, Pedda

Dornal village and Mandal, Prakasam Dist.,

2) Mogili Krishna Murty, S/o. Anantha Rao, Hindu,

Business, near Gangothri water plant Srisailam road, Pedda Dornal village and mandal.

3) Perumalla Ramesh, S/o. P.V.Subba Rao, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Business, R/o. S.V.K.R.

street, P.Dornal village and mandal.

4) Kasavarjula Bhavani Prasad, Poojari, aged about 50 years, Godralikonda temple, Rajampalli village, near Yenuguladinnepadu, Peddaraveedu mandal.

5) Perumalla Venkata Subba Rao, S/o. Pedda

Chenchu Subbaiah, aged about 75 years, S.V.K.P.

Street, P.Dornal village and mandal.

6) Alapati Pitchaiah, S/o. Bala Subbaiah, aged about 40 years, Hindu, near bus stand,

Yerragondapalem village and mandal.

7) Alapati Venkateswarlu, S/o. Bala Subbaiah, near bus stand, Yerragondapalem village and mandal.

8) Dogiparthi Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. Balaiah, aged about 60 years, Hindu, R/o. Viswanadhapuram village and post, Tripuranthakam mandal.

9) Garlapati Prasada Rao, S/o. Ananthaiah, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Business, Fancy shop, SVKP

Street, P.Dornal village and mandal.

10) Perumalla Satya Narayana, S/o. Bala Peraiah, aged about 70 years, Hindu, Business, Kirana shop,

R/o. Indira Nagar, P.Dornal village and mandal.

11)PerumallaVenkataSrinivasulu,S/o.

Satyanarayana, age about 35 years, Hindu, Cloth

Shop, SVKP Street, P.Dornal village and mandal.

12) Grandhe Rama Devi, W/o. Srinivasulu, aged about 40 years, Hindu, near Anna Nasaraiah's house, P.Dornal village and mandal.

13) Perumalla Prasad, S/o. Satyam, aged about 60 years, Hindu, Business, oop to Peerla Chavidi,

P.Dornal village and mandal.

14) Kancherla Chenna Krishna Goud, aged about 47 years, Hindu, Business, C/o. Sri. Parameswara

Lodge, P.Dornal village and mandal.

….Defendants

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing in the presence of the Sri. P.Y.S. Ratnam and Smt. E. SaradaAdvocates for the plaintiffs, and Sri R.Sree Krishnaiah Advocate for the defendants, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following.

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

Suit is filed to declare the right and title of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule land and to grant consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule property and for costs.

I.A.NO. 170/2020 is filed and allowed, advanced from 01-07-2020 to this day. Not press memo filed is recorded and this suit is dismissed as withdrawn.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 25th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MARKAPUR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined - Nil -

Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik

S.C.J.,

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: MARKAPUR

PRESENT : Sri M.Srinivasulu Naik,

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur

This the 25th day of June, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 184 of 2018

Between:

1) Perumalla Ranga Subbamma, W/o. Late

Chenchaiah, aged about 80 years, Hindu,

2) Perumalla Suresh Babu, S/o. Late Chenchaiah, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Business,

Both are residents of Thimmapuram village,

Dornal Mandal, Prakasam Dist., ….Plaintiffs

Vs.,

1) Vutukuri Meenaiah, S/o. Rama Swamy, aged about 85 years, Hindu, Business, KG.Road, Pedda

Dornal village and Mandal, Prakasam Dist.,

2) Mogili Krishna Murty, S/o. Anantha Rao, Hindu,

Business, near Gangothri water plant Srisailam road, Pedda Dornal village and mandal.

3) Perumalla Ramesh, S/o. P.V.Subba Rao, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Business, R/o. S.V.K.R.

street, P.Dornal village and mandal.

4) Kasavarjula Bhavani Prasad, Poojari, aged about 50 years, Godralikonda temple, Rajampalli village, near Yenuguladinnepadu, Peddaraveedu mandal.

5) Perumalla Venkata Subba Rao, S/o. Pedda

Chenchu Subbaiah, aged about 75 years, S.V.K.P.

Street, P.Dornal village and mandal.

6) Alapati Pitchaiah, S/o. Bala Subbaiah, aged about 40 years, Hindu, near bus stand,

Yerragondapalem village and mandal.

7) Alapati Venkateswarlu, S/o. Bala Subbaiah, near bus stand, Yerragondapalem village and mandal.

8) Dogiparthi Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. Balaiah, aged about 60 years, Hindu, R/o. Viswanadhapuram village and post, Tripuranthakam mandal.

9) Garlapati Prasada Rao, S/o. Ananthaiah, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Business, Fancy shop, SVKP

Street, P.Dornal village and mandal.

10) Perumalla Satya Narayana, S/o. Bala Peraiah, aged about 70 years, Hindu, Business, Kirana shop,

R/o. Indira Nagar, P.Dornal village and mandal.

11)PerumallaVenkataSrinivasulu,S/o.

Satyanarayana, age about 35 years, Hindu, Cloth

Shop, SVKP Street, P.Dornal village and mandal.

12) Grandhe Rama Devi, W/o. Srinivasulu, aged about 40 years, Hindu, near Anna Nasaraiah's house, P.Dornal village and mandal.

13) Perumalla Prasad, S/o. Satyam, aged about 60 years, Hindu, Business, oop to Peerla Chavidi,

P.Dornal village and mandal.

14) Kancherla Chenna Krishna Goud, aged about 47 years, Hindu, Business, C/o. Sri. Parameswara

Lodge, P.Dornal village and mandal.

….Defendants

Plaint presented on : 11-10-2018Plaint filed on : 29-11-2018

Cause of Action :

Cause of action for the suit arose on 05-10-1981, when the 1st plaintiff's husband purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed, subsequently when the defendants are tried to trespass into the plaint schedule land in the year 2014, when the defendants 1 and 5 executed a registered sale deed in favour of 14th defendant, mentioning wrong boundaries, which are within the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation :

The suit is market value is Rs. 15,97,200/-, as per J.S.R.O

Markapur. Half of the market value is Rs. 7,98,600/- on which a court fee of Rs. 10,426/- is paid under section 24(b) of A.C.F and S.V.Act.

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing in the presence of the Smt. E. SaradaAdvocate for the plaintiff, and Sri M.Sri Rami Reddy

Advocate for the defendant NO.1, Defendants 2 and 3 are exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree :

- Plaint schedule is hereto attached -

1.that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as withdrawn,

2.that the suit be in I.A.NO. 170/2020 is filed and allowed, advanced from 01-07-2020 to this day. Not press memo filed is recorded and this suit is dismissed as withdrawn; and

3.that the both parties do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 25th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MARKAPUR.

// Table of Costs //

C.M & F.C. not filed

Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik

S.C.J.,

SCC/2/2019

Sandolu Narasimharao vs Vennam Kiran Kumar

22 Jun 2020

SCC.NO.2 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: MARKAPUR

Present : Sri M. Srinivasulu Naik,

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur

Monday, this the 22 nd day of June, 2020.

Small cause No. 02 of 2019

Between:

Sandolu Narasimha Rao, S/o. Manne

Pallaiah, aged about 50 years, Caste by

Vysya, Business, residing at Mattam Colony,

Markapur town and mandal, Prakasam

District. ….Plaintif

Vs.,

Vennam Kiran Kumar, S/o. Devadanam, aged about 28 years, Mala by caste, Business,

R/o. Mattam colony, Railway Station Road,

Markapur town and mandal, Prakasam

District. ….Defendant

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sri. V.Nagendra Raju Advocate for the plaintiff, and the defendant remained set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Suit filed for recovery of Rs.7,560/- basing on a suit promissory note dt. 04-12-2016 for Rs. 5,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that on 04-12-2016 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order at Markapur village and mandal,

Prakasam District. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff,

SCC.NO.2 of 2019 the defendant had not paid the suit amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 31-12-2018 and the defendant received the same and failed to pay the promissory debt and did not give any reply. Therefore, the plaintiff has no other option except filing of this suit. Hence the suit.

3. Despite of giving sufficient opportunity, the defendant did not appear before this Court and hence he was set ex-parte.

4. In support of his case, the plaintiff got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note dt. 04-12- 2016, Ex.A2 is the office copy of the legal notice dt. 31-12-2018 along with postal receipt and Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgment card.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for?

POINT:-

The PW.1 reiterated the plaint averments in his chief examination. The evidence of P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3.

There is no resistance from the defendant towards the claim of plaintiff. I hold that the plaintiff proved the suit claim. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.1 is un-rebutted one, hence I am inclined to accept the evidence of P.W.1 as cogent and trustworthy. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount.

7. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.

7,560/- (Rupees Seven thousand Five hundred and Sixty only) with subsequent interest on principal amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five

SCC.NO.2 of 2019 thousand only) at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suit i.e., on 05-03-2019, till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 22 nd day of June, 2020.vasu-

M.Srinivasulu

SdSd

Senior Civil Judge,

Markapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1: S.Narasimha Rao Exparte

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff: For Defendant: Exparte

Ex.A1: Suit promissory note dt. 04-12-2016,

Ex.A2: Office copy of the legal notice dt. 31-12-2018 along with postal receipt.

Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment card.

d/- M.Srinivasulu NaikSd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik Sd/- M.Srinivasulu

NaikSrinivasulu Naik

Sd/- M. Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik

S.C.J.,

SCC.NO.2 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: MARKAPUR

Present : Sri M. Srinivasulu Naik,

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur

Monday, this the 22 nd day of June, 2020.

Small cause No. 02 of 2019

Between:

Sandolu Narasimha Rao, S/o. Manne

Pallaiah, aged about 50 years, Caste by

Vysya, Business, residing at Mattam Colony,

Markapur town and mandal, Prakasam

District. ….Plaintif

Vs.,

Vennam Kiran Kumar, S/o. Devadanam, aged about 28 years, Mala by caste, Business,

R/o. Mattam colony, Railway Station Road,

Markapur town and mandal, Prakasam

District. ….Defendant

Suit filed for recovery of Rs.7,560/- basing on a suit promissory note dt. 04-12-2016 for Rs. 5,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and for costs.

Plaint presented on : 05-03-2019 Plaint filed on : 24-04-2019

Cause of Action : Cause of action for the suit arose on 04-12-2016 when the defendant borrowed and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Markapur village and mandal, which is within the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs. 7,560/-, on which a court fee of Rs. 606/- is paid u/sec.20 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act.

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sri. V.Nagendra Raju Advocate for the plaintiff, and the

SCC.NO.2 of 2019 defendant remained set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:

1.that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,560/- (Rupees Seven thousand Five hundred and Sixty only) with subsequent interest on principal amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees

Five thousand only) at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suit i.e., on 05-03-2019, till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization; and

2.that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,373/- towards costs of the suit and do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 22nd day June, 2020.

Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MARKAPUR.

// TABLE OF COSTS //

ForFor S.No.Particulars Plaintiff (Rs.)Defendant (Rs.)

1.Stamp on Vakalat2.00

2.Stamp on Plaint606.00 Ex-parte

3. Stamp on Process 65.00

4.Advocate fee500 5Writing charges100.00 6Type charges100.00 Total 1,37300

Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik

S.C.J.,

Order Record 1,525 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/184/2018	Perumalla Ranga Subbamma and another vs Vutukuri Meenaiah and 13 others	25 Jun 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/6/2020	Bellamkonda Sudhakar Rao vs Bellamkonda Nagamani	24 Jun 2020	Order	—
SCC/2/2019	Sandolu Narasimharao vs Vennam Kiran Kumar	22 Jun 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/137/2019	Somu Siva Parvathi vs Somu Venkata Krishnareddy	22 Jun 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/3/2020	Elampapalli Ravindrareddy vs NIl	19 Jun 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/107/2019	Yakasiri Kirshna Veni vs Yakasiri Yogaiah	18 Jun 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/117/2019	Maddirala Rajasekhar vs Maddirala Anuradha	18 Jun 2020	Order	—
IP/37/2016	Illuri Koteswar Reddy vs Byragani Mahaboo	17 Jun 2020	Judgment	—
OS/37/2016	Kommineni Surya Kantham vs Konda Thirupathireddy	17 Jun 2020	Order	—
SC/320/2018	State Inspector of Police, Giddalur P.S vs Kulari @ Kilari Subbaiah	16 Jun 2020	Judgment	Acquitted
IP/6/2017	Grandhe Anjaneyulu vs Chakka Jayaprada	28 May 2020	Order	—
OS/124/2016	Idamakanti Venkata Reddy vs Avula Sankar Reddy	28 May 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/5/2020	Mandla Vara Lakshmi vs Mandla Venkateswarlu	27 May 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/14/2020	Bandlamudi Chinna Avulaiah vs Bandlamudi Naga Malleswari	27 May 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/120/2019	Chagani @ Undella Rajeswari vs Chagani Pavan Kumarreddy	27 May 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/140/2019	Vellalacheruvu Aswani vs Vellalacheruvu Malleswararao	27 May 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/50/2019	Gajula Venkata Subbarao vs Gajula Rajeswari	26 May 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/125/2019	Atluri Aseervadam vs Atluri Subbulu	26 May 2020	Order	—
OS/46/2016	Shaik Mahaboob Basha vs Vsshaik Jafar Vali	24 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/84/2016	Golamari Kaasiviswanadha Reddy vs Gogireddy Lakshmaiah	23 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/128/2019	Ameti Sujatha vs Ameti Balakrishna	23 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/174/2017	Golamari Sankar Reddy vs Arepalli Venkata Lakshmi	20 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/116/2019	Onteddu @ Avireni Swathi vs Avireni Satya Srinivas	20 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/84/2018	Vangara Sreenivasa Rao vs Golla Mallikarjuna Rao died his L.Rs. Golla Radha Parimala	19 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/112/2019	Salikineni Ravikumar vs Surya Swarna Latha @ Salikineni Swarna Latha	19 Mar 2020	Order	—
S.O.P/2/2019	Venna Sambabu vs Nil	19 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/126/2017	Yelchuri Satyanarayana vs Kanamarlapudi Lakshmi Narayana-died	18 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/79/2019	koduri Nageswari vs Koduri Venkateswarlu	18 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/77/2016	Narra Venkata Ramana Reddy vs Lakkireddy Naga Munemma	17 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/94/2016	Narra Venkata Ramana Reddy vs Lakkireddy Rajasekhara Reddy	17 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
SC/349/2016	Thripuranthakam police station vs Kumbagiri Chinna Nagireddy alias Kummagiri Venkata Narayana Reddy	16 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
EP/39/2018	Golla Rama Rao vs Shaik Nabi Saheb	13 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/9/2017	Adapa Varalakshmi vs Mula Jagadeeswara Reddy	13 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/133/2008	Arikatla Seetha Mahalakshmi vs Gangapuram Padmavathi	12 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
EP/49/2019	Kasu Adinarayana reddy vs Annapureddy Pedda Narayana Reddy	11 Mar 2020	Order	—
EP/91/2015	Kalagotla Peddaa Guravaiah vs Thota Venkateswarlu	11 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/10/2018	Samudrala Rama Rao vs Vema Rajendra Babu	11 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
SC/344/2018	State Inspector of Police, Giddalur vs Dammarapu Chenchaiah @ Yesobu	11 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/164/2016	Kandagatla Adinarayana vs Penchikala Subbamma	10 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/9/2020	Metla Balakrishna vs Metla Nagalakshmi	10 Mar 2020	Order	—
IP/25/2016	Kadem Chinna Dibbaiah vs Kadem Chinna Dibbaish	06 Mar 2020	Order	—
EP/35/2017	Thadikamalla Venkata Krishna Kishore vs Katikala Santhosh Kumari	05 Mar 2020	Order	—
EP/203/2015	Nimmanapudi Venkateswara RAo vs Avdhanam Vijaya Bhaskar	05 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/260/2014	Sunkara Ademma vs Sunkara Naga Seshulu	05 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/12/2015	Goddella Sriramulu vs Goddella padma	05 Mar 2020	Order	—
EP/13/2017	Nune Eswaramma vs Meesala Nagendra Rao	04 Mar 2020	Order	—
EP/43/2017	Dudipalli Chinna Veeraiah vs Dandeboina Anjaneyulu	04 Mar 2020	Order	—
IP/39/2016	Sk.Ismail vs Chekka Jaya Prada	04 Mar 2020	Order	—
OS/1/2019	Rallabhandi venkata Mounika vs Paduchuri Ramesh Babu	04 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/44/2017	Golamaru Ramakrishna Reddy vs Vemulapalli Sri Rakesh	04 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/180/2018	Javvaji Venkata Ranga Reddy vs Venna Hanuma Reddy	03 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/81/2019	Kanduri Keerthana vs Giddalur Srinivasulu	03 Mar 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/96/2019	Kayala Rama Lakshmi vs Kayala Murali Krishna	03 Mar 2020	Order	—
SC/247/2016	Sub-Inspector of police, Markapur town police station vs Miriyala Anji Babu alias Anji	02 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/38/2018	Yadavali Bhulakshmi vs Yadavali Venkata Ramana	02 Mar 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/134/2019	Bogem Srilakshmi vs Bogem Hanumantharao	02 Mar 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/12/2018	Chanda Sudha Rani vs Chanda Venkateswarlu @ Venkatesh	27 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/135/2019	Ramadugu Ramana vs Ramadugu Srinivasulu	27 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/141/2019	Battula Rosaiah vs Battula @ Muvva Malleswari	27 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/105/2019	Macha @ Thummalapalli Nandana vs Thummalapalli Reena Nath	26 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/106/2019	Madam Mohareddy vs Medam@ Nallamasu Manasa	26 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/24/2019	Sri N.S. Educational Society, rep by its Chairman Nadella Chandramouli vs Chenkella Palanki Reddy	25 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/68/2019	Borigorla Peda Nasaraiah vs Borigorla Nagalakshmi	25 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/89/2019	Cheekati Jyothi @ Nagadasari Jyothi vs Cheekati Ranga swamy	25 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/127/2019	Yerramsetty Venkata Ravindra Babu vs Yerramsetty Adilakshmi	25 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/104/2016	M/s. Kapil Chits Kosta Private Ltd., Ongole vs Muparaju Venkateswarlu	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/172/2015	Challa Veeranarayana vs Thirupathi Kotaiah	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/40/2019	Panem Veera Venkateswarlu vs Panem Ammoji	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/57/2019	Mothe Siva Sankar vs Mothe Sivalakshmi	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/115/2019	Singareddy Kondareddy vs Singareddy Rama Rajeswari	24 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/41/2016	Chitte Subba Reddy vs Gali Mall Reddy	20 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/32/2017	Ravuri Viswarupachari vs Ravuri Vijaya Kumari	20 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/115/2017	Andhra bank, Medapi Branch, Represented by Its Branch Manager, Medapi vs Vankayalapati Manthramm	19 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/41/2016	Gandham Gopi vs Gandham Hema @ Hemalatha	19 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/132/2019	Nelaturi Prashanthi vs Nelaturi Pavan Kumarreddy	19 Feb 2020	Order	—
IP/21/2016	Munaganuri Nageswar Rao vs Chatakondu Prasad	18 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/99/2019	Vyza lakshmi Devi vs Vyza Ram Mohanreddy	18 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/133/2019	Thota @ Pokala Sukanya vs Pokala Subhash Chandra Bhanu	18 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/169/2018	Shaik Hussain Peera vs Daddam Madhavi	17 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/170/2018	Shaik Hussain Peera vs Daddam Madhavi	17 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/138/2019	Ravi Sirisha vs Ravi Venkata Srikanthreddy	17 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/152/2016	Shaik Ismail vs Soda Venkata Lakshmi	14 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
SC/76/2018	Sub-Inspector of Police, Yerragondapalem circle vs Peddapothu Venkateswara Reddy	13 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/32/2016	Boyapati Raja Venkata Narayana vs Boyapati ramulu	13 Feb 2020	Order	—
EP/132/2014	Oruganti Ramanamma vs Maddirala Pedda balaiah	12 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/72/2008	Siddula Chennaiah vs Siddula Guravamma	12 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
EP/88/2016	Javvaji Sreenivasulu vs Shaik Kasimbee	10 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/135/2017	State Bank of India, Markapur Branch, represented by It's Chief manager vs Katikela Santhose Kumari and another	10 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/76/2018	Yelam Venkata Rangaiah vs Pattan Hussain Khan	08 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/117/2017	Puli Dola Harinadh vs Pagadala Venkateswarlu	08 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/100166/2015	Vukkadapu Gangadhar vs Vukkadapu Lakshmi Narayana	07 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/128/2017	Vallem Adeiah @ Adi vs Vallem Mallika	07 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/69/2016	XXXXX vs XXXXX	06 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/70/2016	Nandyala Peeraiah vs Angam Kondaswamy	06 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/390/2014	Angam Chinna Venkateswarlu vs Angam Pedda Venkateswarlu	06 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
EP/52/2019	Dhanankula Srinivasulu vs Varra Krishna Murthy died his legal heirs	05 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/8/2019	Yarraguntla Sandhya Rani@ Nallabothula Sandhya Rani vs Yarraguntla Siva Sankar babu @ Siva Sankaar Chowdary	04 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/95/2019	Nagularapu Nagalakshmi @ Naga Lakshmamma vs Nagularapu Anil Vidya Sagar	04 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/119/2019	Meghavath Beekoji Naik vs Meghavath Santhi Bai@ Vankadavath Santhi Bai	04 Feb 2020	Order	—
H.M.O.P/124/2018	Seelam Srinivasulu vs Seelam Alekhya	04 Feb 2020	Order	—

Showing 100 of 1,525 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jun 2020		10
May 2020		8
Mar 2020		38
Feb 2020		45
Jan 2020		38
Dec 2019		39
Nov 2019		38
Oct 2019		33
Sep 2019		32
Aug 2019		39
Jul 2019		42
Jun 2019		51

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has M Srinivasulu Naik handled?

M Srinivasulu Naik has handled 1539 court orders since 2017 at VI Addl District Court, Markapur. The average disposal rate is 41 orders per month.

What types of cases does M Srinivasulu Naik hear?

Based on available records, M Srinivasulu Naik primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, SCC) at VI Addl District Court, Markapur.

Where is M Srinivasulu Naik currently posted?

M Srinivasulu Naik is posted as Senior Civil Judge, Markapur at VI Addl District Court, Markapur, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by M Srinivasulu Naik available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by M Srinivasulu Naik are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does M Srinivasulu Naik dispose cases?

M Srinivasulu Naik disposes approximately 41 cases per month, based on 1539 orders handled over their tenure at VI Addl District Court, Markapur.

Since when is M Srinivasulu Naik serving?

M Srinivasulu Naik has been serving at VI Addl District Court, Markapur since 2017.

Case Types

OS 46%

H 24%

EP 15%

SC 6%

IP 6%

S 1%

L 1%

SCC 0%

Posting History

May 2017 — Jul 2020

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur · 1,539 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. Velpula Bhavani

VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Markapur

0 orders

Sri B.Devendra Reddy

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur

2,031 orders

Sri M.Balaji

Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Markapur

1,939 orders

Sri J.Kishore Kumar

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur

1,610 orders

← View all judges at VI Addl District Court, Markapur