Currently Serving

Majji Vamsi Krishna

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGEAnaparthy

Court of Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthy (Taluka) · East Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Majji Vamsi Krishna, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGEAnaparthy, is posted at Court of Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthy (Taluka), East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 3,149 court orders on record since 2024. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles STC, CC, OS cases.

3,149

Total Orders

Judgments

112

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/178/2021

Padala Lakshmana Reddy vs Posina Nageswara Rao

07 Aug 2025

O.S.No.178/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 1 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : :

ANAPARTHI.

PRESENT: SRI M.VAMSI KRISHNA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 07 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

O.S.NO.178/2021

Between : Padala Lakshmana Reddy, S/o Satyanarayana Reddy, Age 53 years, Cultivation and Business, D.No.8-136, Kummari Street, Resident of Anaparthi village, Anaparthi Mandal. …Plaintiff

And

1) Posina Nageswara Rao, S/o Dharma Raju, Age 52 years, Business, D.No.4-3, near Ramalayam, Main Road, Resident of Kapavaram village, Biccavole Mandal. (DIED)

2) Posina Nagamani, W/o late Nageswara Rao, Age 50 years, Business, D.No.4-3, near Ramalayam, Main Road, Resident of Kapavaram Village, Biccavole Mandal. (2nd defendnat added as the legal heir of the deceased 1st defendnat as per the orders of this court in IA 71/2023 dt.11.04.2023) …Defendants This suit is coming on 31.07.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri TV.Narayana Reddy and S.Tata Reddy, Advocates for plaintiff and for Sri K.Venkata Ramana and Sri N.Siva Sankar and Sri P.Veera Babu, Advocates for defendant No.2 and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of amount of Rs.8,20,853/- being the principle and interest due on mortgage deed of Rs.2,50,000/- dt.26.06.2014 with a compounding interest at the rate of 24% P.A and enable the plaintiff to sell the plaint schedule property

O.S.No.178/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 2 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi by preliminary and final decrees by extinguishing the right of redemption of defendants and for costs.

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

Deceased 1stdefendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 26-06-2014for the purpose of his necessaries to discharging debts and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed a registered mortgage deed vide Doc.No.

1823/2014, dt.26.06.2014 of SRO, Biccavole in the presence of attestors and scribe by agreeing to redeem the mortgage debt in two equal yearly installments i.e. 1)on or before 25.06.2015 the 1stdefendant agreed to pay accrued interest @ 24% p.a., 2)on or before 25.06.2016 the 1stdefendant agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a., The 1st defendant further agreed to pay compound interest at yearly rests in case, if he was failed to pay the installments in time. Deceased 1st defendant handed over his original link document sale deed under Doc.No.711/1990,

dated 26/04/1990 to the plaintiff on the date of execution of suit mortgage

deed. Deceased 1st defendant failed to pay the installments, so also, failed to discharge the debt though he is absolute owner of plaint schedule property despite of legal notice dt.18-06-2018. The defendant neither issued any reply notice nor paid any amount. Hence the suit.

3.As the first defendant died, wife of 1st defendant was added as 2nd defendant to the suit as per orders in IA 71/2023 dated 11.04.2023. 2nd defendant filed her written statement as follows;

The 2nddefendant denied the allegations of plaint para wise. 2nd defendant contends that one Posina Rambabu who was the distinct relative of defendants got filed the present suit through plaintiff for grabbing the properties of the defendants. 2nd defendant further contends that there were not transactions between plaintiff and the 1st defendant and that the suit mortgage deed is not supported by consideration and 1st defendant had no

O.S.No.178/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 3 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi necessity to borrow any amount and that he never informed her about the borrowing of amount under suit promissory note. 2nd defendant further contends that the 1st defendant died on 22-04-2021 leaving behind 2nd defendant and four daughters. Hence, prayed the court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Court framed the following issues for determination:

Issues:

1.Whether the mortgage deed, dt.26-06-2014executed by deceased 1sty defendant is true, valid and supported by consideration as alleged by the 2nddefendant ?

2.Whether the mortgage deed, dt.26-06-2014 is created for the purpose of this suit?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree as prayed for?

4.To what relief?

During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff he himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 on his behalf. 2nd attesor of the mortgage deed is examined as PW2. On behalf of defendants, 2nd defendant herself examined as DW1 but no documents were marked on behalf of the defendants.

5. Heard the arguments of learned counsels for plaintiff and defendant.

6. Issue No.1 to 3:

Whether the mortgage deed, dt.26-06-2014 executed by

deceased 1sty defendant is true, valid and supported by

consideration as alleged by the 2nd defendant ?Whether the

mortgage deed, dt.26-06-2014 is created for the purpose of this

suit?Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree as

prayed for?

7.It is the case of the plaintiff that the deceased 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from him on 26-06-2014 with rate of

O.S.No.178/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 4 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi interest 24 percent per annum under registered mortgage deed

Doc.1823/2014, SRO, Biccavole. On repeated demands made by the plaintiff the 1stdefendant failed to repay the amount. On the other hand, the 2nddefendant contends that she was not informed by the 1st defendant regarding the present debt and that the present suit was got filed by one

Posuri Rambabu through plaintff.

8.In view of the above rival contentions and above issues, it is obvious to say that the burden of proof is undoubtedly on the plaintiff to clinchingly establish the execution of the mortgage deed and passing of consideration there under in the light of the specific defence urged by the defendant. To substantiate the case of plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined as

P.W.1. by filing examination in chief as affidavit by reiterated the contents of plaint, so also, got examined 1stattestor of suit mortgage deed as PW.2 who categorically sailing with that of plaintiff by the way of chief affidavit and also stood cross examination in similar lines.

9. Through PW.1, Ex.A1 to A4 got marked.Ex A1 is the mortgage deed dt.26-06-2014 executed by the defendant for amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with the rate of interest 24 percent per annum vide document No.1823/2014,

SRO, Biccavole which discloses the conditions of repayment as mentioned in the plaint and description of the said property is in S.No.354/2 in full extent

Ac.3-64 cents, in western side an extent of Ac.1.11 cents, in further southern side an extent of Ac.0.48 cents = 0-194 Hectors = 2323.2 Sq.yards = 1942.42

Sq.meters of vacant site. Ex.A2 is the original sale deed said to be handed over to the plaintiff by the deceased 1st defendant for the purpose of security.

Ex.A3 goes to show that the plaintiff demanded the 1stdefendant to discharge the debt covered under the mortgage deed on 18.06.2018. Ex.A4 is the Postal receipt. PW2 who is one of the attestors of Ex.A1 deposed in similar lines of

PW1. The evidence of PW2 corroborates the evidence of PW1. On the other hand 2nd defendant filed chief affidavit as DW1 by reiterating the contents of

O.S.No.178/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 5 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi her written statement.

10.On perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 goes to show that the deceased 1st defendant mortgaged Ex.A2 schedule property to the plaintiff and executed

Ex.A1 and handed over Ex.A2 to the plaintiff. During the cross examination of

DW1, DW1 admitted that the photographs and ration card annexed to Ex.A1 belong to the deceased 1st defendant. DW1 further admitted that D1 purchased 48 cents of land from one Posina Suryarao and she further deposed that she do not have original documents relating to said 48 cents of land. On perusal the extent covered under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are 48 cents land and Ex.A2 is executed by Posina Surya Rao. Thus, it is proved that Ex.A1 mortgaged property belongs to the deceased 1st defendant and he handed over the original of Ex.A2 to plaintiff.

11. Ex.A1 is registered document and it is settled law that a registered document is presumed to be genuine. The presence of sale deed of mortgaged property in custody of plaintiff supports the passing of consideration under Ex.A1. Defendant failed to adduce any positive evidence to disprove the execution of the Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff by the deceased 1st defendant.

12. Learned counsel for defendants argues that deceased 1st defendant had four daughters but they were not impleaded as the defendants and so the suit must be dismissed for absence of necessary parties. On perusal of the record it can be seen that, 2nd defendant who is wife of deceased 1st defendant was impleaded after the death of deceased 1st defendant. It is settled law that suit shall not be abated for non- impleading of all the legal representatives in the estate of deceased is substantially represented. Thus, failure to implead the daughters of the deceased 1st defendant is not fatal the case of plaintiff.

13.In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is held that the defendant failed to discharge his onus. On the other hand, the plaintiff

O.S.No.178/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 6 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi established the execution of Ex.A1. Hence, it is held that mortgage deed dt.26-06-2014 is true, valid andsupported by consideration. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree for the suit amount. Accordingly, these issues are answered.

14. ISSUE NO.3:

In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs directing 2nd defendant to pay a sum of Rs.8,20,853/- (Rupees eight lakhs twenty thousand eight hundred and fifty three only) to the plaintiff together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,50,000/- out of the estate of deceased 1st defendant. Time for redemption is granted for 3 months (Three months).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 07 th day of August, 2025

Sd/-M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

PW1: Padala Lakshmana Reddy. PW2: Medapati Bhaskara Reddy.

FOR DEFENDANTS: DW1: Posina Nagamani.

EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Original registered mortgage deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 24.06.2014 Ex.A2: Original registered sale deed obtained by the 1st defendant from Posina Subbarao and others dated 26.04.1990. Ex.A3: Office copy of registered legal notice issued by the plaintiff through his Advocate to the 1st defendant dated 18.06.2018

O.S.No.178/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 7 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi

Ex.A4: Original postal receipt in proof of issuance of notice to the 1st defendant dated 18.06.2018 FOR DEFENDNATS: NIL

Sd/-M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI.

O.S.No.178/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 8 Doth Order & DecreeAnaparthi

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : :

ANAPARTHI.

PRESENT: SRI M.VAMSI KRISHNA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 07 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

O.S.NO.178/2021

Between : Padala Lakshmana Reddy, S/o Satyanarayana Reddy, Age 53 years, Cultivation and Business, D.No.8-136, Kummari Street, Resident of Anaparthi village, Anaparthi Mandal. …Plaintiff

And

1) Posina Nageswara Rao, S/o Dharma Raju, Age 52 years, Business, D.No.4-3, near Ramalayam, Main Road, Resident of Kapavaram village, Biccavole Mandal. (DIED)

2) Posina Nagamani, W/o late Nageswara Rao, Age 50 years, Business, D.No.4-3, near Ramalayam, Main Road, Resident of Kapavaram Village, Biccavole Mandal. (2nd defendant added as the legal heir of the deceased 1st defendnat as per the orders of this court in IA 71/2023 dt.11.04.2023) …Defendants

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of amount of Rs.8,20,853/- being the principle and interest due on mortgage deed of Rs.2,50,000/- dt.26.06.2014 with a compounding interest at the rate of 24% P.A and enable the plaintiff to sell the plaint schedule property by preliminary and final decrees by extinguishing the right of redemption of defendants and for costs.

Plaint presented on: 27.12.2019 Plaint filed on: 29.10.2021

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction under A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act is Rs.8,20,853/-. On which a court fee of Rs.10,726/- is paid under Sec.31(1) Sch.I Art.I (c) of A.P.C.F & S.V Act and G.No.102 dt.20.03.2019. Cause of action for the suit arose on 26-06-2014, when the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the Plaintiff, for the purpose of his necessaries to discharging of debts, by executing a Registered

O.S.No.178/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 9 Doth Order & DecreeAnaparthi

Mortgage deed dated 26- 06-2014, executed a mortgage deed dated 26-06- 2014, and the same was registered before Sub-Registrar Office, Biccavole on 26-06-2014, in favor of the Plaintiff creating security over the plaint schedule property and on all subsequent dates when the 1st defendant demanded by the Plaintiff to repay the amount due to the Plaintiff, and got issued registered legal notice also. Where the plaint schedule property is situated at Kapavaram village, of Biccavole Mandal, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit is coming on 31.07.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri TV.Narayana Reddy and S.Tata Reddy, Advocates for plaintiff and for Sri K.Venkata Ramana and Sri N.Siva Sankar and Sri P.Veera Babu, Advocates for defendant No.2 and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court, DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff on his mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated from 26.06.2014 up to 26.12.2019 on the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- which is the principal, the sum of Rs.5,70,853/- is the compound interest on the said principal and the sum of Rs.46,144/- towards costs of this suit awarded to the plaintiff making in all the sum of

Rs.8,66,997/-. Time for redemption three months.

And it is hereby awarded and decreed as follows :-

i) That the plaintiff do recover the said sum of Rs.8,66,997/- from the defendant on or before the 07th day of November, 2025 or any later date up to which time for payment may be extended by the court of the said sum with subsequent simple interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a from the date of decree to till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,50,000/- or else the petitioner is at liberty to realize the decretal amount as per law.

ii) that, on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the Court may fix of such amount as the Court may adjudge due in respect of such amount as the court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rules 8, 10 together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the first schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure

O.S.No.178/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 10 Doth Order & DecreeAnaparthi 1908, the plaintiff shall bring into Court all documents in his possession power relating to the mortgaged/charged property in the plaint mentioned, and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendant, or to such person as he appoints, and the plaintiff shall, if so required, recovery of retransfer the said property free from the said mortgage clear of and from all encumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him or any person under whom the claims and shall if so required, deliver up to the defendant quite and peaceful possession of the said property.

And it is hereby further ordered and decree that, in default of payment is aforesaid, the plaintiff may apply to the Court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgage property; and on such application being made the mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof shall be directed to be sold; and for the purposes of such sale the plaintiff shall produce before the Court or such offices as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into Court and shall be duly applied (after deduction there from of the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the Court may adjudge due to the plaintiff, in respect of such costs of the suit, and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the First schedule to the C.P.C.1908 and that the balance, if any, shall be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to erosive the same.

And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in all of the amount payable to the plaintiff as aforesaid the plaintiff shall be at liberty (Where such remedy is open to him under the terms of his mortgage and is not barred by

O.S.No.178/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 11 Doth Order & DecreeAnaparthi any law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance, and that the parties at liberty to apply to the Court from time to time as they may have occasion, and on such application or otherwise the Court may give such direction as it thinks fit.

::PLAINT SCHEDULE::

District : East Godavari Mandal : Biccavole

Sub-Registry: Biccavole Village : Kapavaram

In Kapavaram Grampanchayat Area, In Kapavaram village, In

R.S.No.354/2, zeroyat wet land in full extent of Ac.3-64 cents, in western side an extent of Ac.1-11 cents, in further southern side an extent of Ac.0-48 cents = 0-194 Hectors = 2323.2 Sq. Yards = 1942.42 Sq. Meters of vacant site, is bounded as follows:

East : Land belongs to Datla Venkatapathi Raju

West : Puntha

North : Land belongs to Posina Dharma Raju in this number

South : Land belongs to Sooti Satyam etc.,

In the above stated boundaries an extent of 2323.2 Sq. Yards of vacant site, water, and walk and all other easementary rights there on.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 07th day of August, 2025.

SD/-M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI.

Memorandum of Costs

For plaintiff Rs. For defendant

1. Stamp on Vakalat02-00 No bill of cost is filed

2. Stamp on plaint10,720-00

O.S.No.178/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 12 Doth Order & DecreeAnaparthi

3. Stamp on petitions 03-00

4. Process Fee150-00

5. Senior Advocate fee26,400-00

6. Junior Advocate fee 8,800-00

7. Typing Charges34-00

8. Writing charges35-00

Costs allowed46,144-00

Sd/-M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI.

Note: The parties should apply as soon as possible for return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the records will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order.

OS/106/2019

Nallamilli Subba Reddy vs Nekkala Veera Babu

07 Aug 2025

O.S.No.106/2019Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 1 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : :

ANAPARTHI.

PRESENT: SRI M.VAMSI KRISHNA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 07 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

O.S.No.106/2019

Between : Nallamilli Subba Reddy, S/o Sura Reddy, Age 54 years, Cultivation, R/o D.No.13-256, Main Road, Gollala Mamidada Village, Pedapudi Mandal, E.G.District. …Plaintiff

And

Nekkala Veerababu, S/o Surya Rao, Age 45 years, R/o D.No.4-19, Ramalayam Street, Voolapalli Village, Biccavole Mandal, E.G.District. …Defendant

This suit is coming on 30.07.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.V.V.Ramana Murthy, Advocate for plaintiff and for Sri R.V.G.Patnaik, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to pass preliminary mortgage decree for the suit amount of Rs.12,68,689/- giving time for redemption on the suit mortgage deed to the defendant and if the defendant failed to redeem the same by the date pass a final decree entitling the plaintiff to realize the decretal amount covered by the preliminary decree by sale of hypotheca and also enforcing personal liability against the other properties of the defendant, if the decretal debt remains undercharged after the sale of hypotheca and to award costs of the suit.

O.S.No.106/2019Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 2 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi

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

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 12.07.2012 for the purpose of his family expenses and to discharging debts and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed a non possessory simple mortgage deed vide

Doc.No.2368/2012, dt.12.07.2012 by agreeing to repay the saem in two installments, the 1st installment being principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on or

before 11.07.2013 along with subsequent interest accrued thereon and the 2nd

installment being principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 10.07.2014 along with subsequent interest accrued thereon. Defendant failed to pay the installments, so also, failed to discharge the debt though he is absolute owner of plaint schedule property despite of legal notice dt.01.11.2016 and received the same on 05.12.2016. The defendant neither issued any reply notice nor paid any amount. Hence the suit.

3. Defendant filed his written statement as follows:- Plaintiff is name lender one S.Rambabu and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend amount to the defendant and that the defendant no necessity to borrow amount from the plaintiff. Defendant participated in chit run by said Rambabu for value of

Rs.5,00,000/- and became highest bidder. Said Rambabu while promising to give prize amount to the defendant, obtained a document without disclosing the contents of it and that the defendant did not question having faith on

Rambabu. Said Rambabu also obtained blank promissory notes and defendant’s house title deeds as security for repayment of chit amount but he did not advance any money to the defendant even on persistent demands and informed that the defendant owed him monies to him in earlier transactions.

Said Rambabu also filed one another suit on the foot of promissory note through his father. The present suit is also filed through plaintiff by using said mortgage bond obtained by the defendant by playing confidential trick. Thus, the defendant contended that suit mortgage is devoid of consideration and he

O.S.No.106/2019Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 3 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi did not execute the same in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant further contends that the plaintiff cannot claim interest more than the principal amount as per

Rule of Dandapath. Thus, defendant prays to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Court framed the following issues for determination: ISSUES:

1.Whether the mortgage deed, dt.12-07-2012 is true, valid and supported by consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- as alleged by the defendant ?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

5. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff he himself examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 on his behalf. 2ndattesor of the mortgage deed is examined as PW.2. On behalf of defendant, he examined himself as

D.W.1 but no documents were marked on behalf of the defendant.

6. Heard the arguments of learned counsels for plaintiff and defendant.

7. Issue No.1 & 2:

Whether the mortgage deed, dt.12-07-2012 is true, valid and

supported by consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- as alleged by the

defendant ? Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree

as prayed for?

8.It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from him on 12-07-2013 with rate of compound interest 24% per annum under registered mortgage deed Doc.2368/2012. On repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant failed to repay the amount. On the other hand, the defendant contends that one Rambabu obtained the suit document from him through trick towards security of chit amount and that said Rambabu is behind the back of plaintiff and that he has

O.S.No.106/2019Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 4 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi no transactions with the plaintiff.

9.In view of the above rival contentions and above issues, it is obvious to say that the burden of proof is undoubtedly on the plaintiff to clinchingly establish the execution of the mortgage deed and passing of consideration there under in the light of the specific defence urged by the defendant. To substantiate the case of plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined as

P.W.1. by filing examination in chief as affidavit by reiterated the contents of plaint, so also, got examined 2nd attestor of suit mortgage deed as PW.2 who categorically sailing with that of plaintiff by the way of chief affidavit and also stood cross examination in similar lines.

10. Through PW.1, Ex.A1 to A4 got marked.Ex A1 is the mortgage deed dt.12-07-2012 executed by the defendant for amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with the rate of interest 24% per annum vide document No.2368/2012, which discloses the conditions of repayment as mentioned in the plaint and description of the Ex.A1 schedule property as suit schedule property. Ex.A2 is the original sale deed of mortgaged schedule property said to be handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant for the purpose of security. Ex.A3 is original registered legal notice which goes to show that the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the debt covered under the mortgage deed on 01.11.2016. Ex.A4 is the Postal receipt. PW2 who is one of the attestors of

Ex.A1 deposed in similar lines of PW1. The evidence of PW2 corroborates the evidence of PW1. On the other hand defendant filed chief affidavit as DW1 by reiterating the contents of her written statement.

11.On perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 goes to show that the defendant mortgaged Ex.A2 schedule property to the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 and handed over Ex.A2 to the plaintiff. During the cross examination of DW1, he deposed that he cannot identified the ration card annexed to Ex.A1, the photograph on the ration card, signature and thumb impression on photograph on Section 32(A) certificate annexed to Ex.A1 belong to him or not. Although,

O.S.No.106/2019Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 5 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi the defendant gave evasive reply regarding the signature on the registration endorsement of Ex.A1 etc., learned counsel for defendant made a suggestion to PW1 that plaintiff, 1st attestor and father of 1st attestor called the defendant to registration office and thereby got executed Ex.A1 by fraud on defendant, which was denied by the PW1. This suggestion goes to show that the defendant appeared before the SRO and got executed Ex.A1 before the SRO and same was registered.

12. Ex.A1 is registered document and it is settled law that a registered document is presumed to be genuine. The presence of sale deed of mortgaged property in custody of plaintiff supports the passing of consideration under Ex.A1. Defendant failed to adduce any positive evidence to disprove the execution of the Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant. Although, defendant made an attempt to summon the chit book which was marked in another suit by filing a petition, the same was dismissed.

Even if the said chit book was summoned, the defendant at most could prove the existence of the chit transaction between himself and said Rambabu.

However, plaintiff did not adduce any evidence to prove that said Rambabu was behind the back of plaintiff and that the said Rambabu himself obtained suit documents by fraud.

13. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is held that the defendant failed to discharge his onus. On the other hand, the plaintiff established the execution of Ex.A1. Hence, it is held that mortgage deed dt.12-07-2012 is true, valid and supported by consideration.

14. Learned counsel for defendant relied on decisions reported in

AIR 2017 (NOC) 55KAR, 1999(5) ALT 186, 2009(2) ALD 56 and the decision of Hon’ble High Court of AP in Lokam Ramachandra Rao Vs. Bank of

Baroda dated 10.12.1998 and contended that the interest amount claimed by the plaintiff he more and that plaintiff cannot claim interest more than principal amount as per rule of Dandupat. However, said decisions do not apply to the

O.S.No.106/2019Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 6 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi facts of present case. Rule of Dandupat has no application to state of Andhra

Pradesh and same has been reiterated by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in the decision of S. Ravi Kumar v. P. Rama Rao And Another reported in 2009 ALD 5 764.

15. Thus, from the above discussion, this Court of the opinion that plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree for the suit amount. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

16. ISSUE NO.3:

In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs directing defendant to pay a sum of Rs.12,68,689/- to the plaintiff together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Time for redemption is granted for 3 months (Three months).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 07 th day of August, 2025

Sd/-M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: PW1: Dt.20.04.2023: Nallamilli Subba Reddy. PW2: Dt.10.09.2024: Ampolu Anil Kumar.

FOR DEFENDANT: DW1: Dt.28.02.2025: Nekkala Veera babu.

EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Original registered mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dt.12.07.2012. Ex.A2: Original registered sale deed executed by Kalla Bhagya Lakshmi and her two sons in favour of the defendant dt.15.09.1998. Ex.A3: Original registered legal notice got issued to the defendant

O.S.No.106/2019Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 7 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi dt.01.11.2016. Ex.A4: Original acknowledgment of the defendant dt.05.11.2016.

For Defendant: NIL

Sd/-M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI.

O.S.No.106/2019Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 1 Doth Order & DecreeAnaparthi

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : :

ANAPARTHI.

PRESENT: SRI M.VAMSI KRISHNA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 07 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

O.S.No.106/2019

Between : Nallamilli Subba Reddy, S/o Sura Reddy, Age 54 years, Cultivation, R/o D.No.13-256, Main Road, Gollala Mamidada Village, Pedapudi Mandal, E.G.District. …Plaintiff

And

Nekkala Veerababu, S/o Surya Rao, Age 45 years, R/o D.No.4-19, Ramalayam Street, Voolapalli Village, Biccavole Mandal, E.G.District. …Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to pass preliminary mortgage decree for the suit amount of Rs.12,68,689/- giving time for redemption on the suit mortgage deed to the defendant and if the defendant failed to redeem the same by the date pass a final decree entitling the plaintiff to realize the decretal amount covered by the preliminary decree by sale of hypotheca and also enforcing personal liability against the other properties of the defendant, if the decretal debt remains undercharged after the sale of hypotheca and to award costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on: 20.03.2019 Plaint filed on: 01.05.2019

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction under A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act is Rs.12,68,689/-. On which a court fee of Rs.15,126/- is paid under Sec.31(1) Sch.I Art.I (c) of A.P.C.F & S.V Act and G.No.102 dt.20.03.2019.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 12-07-2012 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff and when the defendant executed a unpossessory registered mortgage deed over the schedule property vide document No.2368/2012 as security for the amount borrowed by the defendant agreeing to repay the same in two installments, the 1st installment being principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 11-07- 2015 along with subsequent interest accrued thereon and the 2nd installment

O.S.No.106/2019Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 2 Doth Order & DecreeAnaparthi being principal amount of Rs.l,50,000/- on or before 10-07-2014 along with subsequent interest accrued thereon and when the plaintiff repeatedly requesting the defendant to repay the said amount and but the defendant has been postponing the same by one pretext or other and on 01-11-2016 when the plaintiff got issued a Regd. Legal notice to the defendant and on 05-11- 2016 when the defendant received the said notice but he did not pay any amount nor gave any reply to the plaintiff and at Biccavole village and Mandal where the plaint schedule property is situated is within the jurisdiction of this court.

It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff on his mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated from 12.07.2012 up to 17.03.2019 on the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- which is the principal, the sum of

Rs.9,68,689/- is the compound interest on the said principal and the sum of

Rs.68,373/- towards costs of this suit awarded to the plaintiff making in all the sum of Rs.10,37,062/-. Time for redemption three months.

And it is hereby awarded and decreed as follows :-

i) That the plaintiff do recover the said sum of Rs.10,37,062/- from the defendant on or before the 07th day of November, 2025 or any later date up to which time for payment may be extended by the court of the said sum with subsequent simple interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a from the date of decree to till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.3,00,000/- or else the petitioner is at liberty to realize the decretal amount as per law.

O.S.No.106/2019Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 3 Doth Order & DecreeAnaparthi

Procedure 1908, the plaintiff shall bring into Court all documents in his possession power relating to the mortgaged/charged property in the plaint mentioned, and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendant, or to such person as he appoints, and the plaintiff shall, if so required, recovery of retransfer the said property free from the said mortgage clear of and from all encumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him or any person under whom the claims and shall if so required, deliver up to the defendant quite and peaceful possession of the said property.

O.S.No.106/2019Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 4 Doth Order & DecreeAnaparthi any law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance, and that the parties at liberty to apply to the Court from time to time as they may have occasion, and on such application or otherwise the Court may give such direction as it thinks fit.

::PLAINT SCHEDULE::

District: East Godavari SRO : Biccavole

Mandal: Biccavole Village: Biccavole

RCC building constructed after removal of Mangalore tiled house and vacant site therein in D.No.5-118, in R.S.No.348/2 of Rajaraopeta, 5th block of

Biccavole village is bounded by:

East : 20-06 feet site of Pothala Peddulu

West : 20-06 feet site of Parupalli Gavarayya

North : 18-05 feet Joint lane

South : 18-05 feet Lane of Pothala Syamulu and others

In between the boundaries an extent of 42 sq. yds of RCC building and vacant site therein along with doors, doorframes, roof, and all easementary rights existing therein.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 07th day of August, 2025.

SD/-M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI.

Memorandum of Costs

For plaintiff Rs. For defendant

1. Stamp on Vakalat02-00

2. Stamp on plaint15,126-00 No bill of cost is filed

3. Process Fee45-00

4. Senior Advocate fee40,000-00

5. Junior Advocate fee 13,000-00

O.S.No.106/2019Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 5 Doth Order & DecreeAnaparthi

5. Typing Charges100-00

6. Writing charges100-00

Costs allowed68,373-00

Sd/-M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI.

OS/126/2021

Posina Rambabu vs Posina Nageswara Rao

07 Aug 2025

O.S.No.126/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 1 Judgment, dt. 07.08.2025Anaparthi

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI

PRESENT: SRI M.VAMSI KRISHNA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI

THURSDAY, THIS THE 07 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

O.S.No.126/2021

Between: Posina Rambabu S/o Subba Rayudu, Hindu, aged 40 years, Business and Cultivation, R/o D.No.4-7, Kapavaram, Biccavolu Mandal, E.G.District …Plaintiff

AND

1) Posina Nageswara Rao, S/o Dharma Raju, Hindu, age 55 years, Cultivation, R/o D.No.4-3, Kapavaram village, Biccavolu Mandal, E.G.District (died)

2) Mallidi Prabha W/o Raja (Professions Courier) Hindu, aged 30 years, R/o 3rd floor, Penupothula Apartments, Opp: Railway Kalyana Mandapam, Main Road, Samarlakota, Samarlkota Mandal, E.G.District.

3) Lokareddi Poorna W/o Bhaskara Rao, hindu, age 27 years, R/o Sidda Vari Veedhi, Chebrolu, Gollaprolu Mandal, E.G.District, Pithapuram Mandal, E.G.District.

4) Marnidi Swathi W/o Rangababu, (Water Plant) Hindu, age 25 years, R/o Lions Club Street, Madapuram Road, Pithapuram, Pithapuram Mandal, E.G.District.

5) Posina Jyothi D/o Nageswara Rao, age 23 years, R/o D.No.43-3, Kapavaarm village, Biccavolu Mandal, E.G.District …Defendant Nos.1 to 5

This suit is coming on 31.07.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.V.Narayana Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff, 1st defendant died and Sri Kanda Venkata Ramana, Advocate for defendant Nos.2 to 5 and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule property into six equal shares and to allot

O.S.No.126/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 2 Judgment, dt. 07.08.2025Anaparthi one such share to the plaintiff by metes and bounds and for costs of the suit and for other reliefs.

2) The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

The suit schedule property is absolute property of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff filed a suit in OS.No.178/2003 before Hon’ble

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ramachandrapuram against the 1st defendant

for recovery of principal amount of Rs.90,000/- and the same was decreed in his favour on 24-09-2007. The defendant preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment in OS No.178/2003 vide A.S.No.223/2007 before

Hon’ble VI Addl. District Judge, East Godavari and the same was disposed

on 26.07.2010 by modifying the decree together with subsequent interests @ 9% from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% p.a., till realization on principal amount and the decree became final.

It is further submitted that the plaintiff filed an EP 28/2011

before Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ramachandrapuram against the

1st defendant for execution of decree in OS No.178/2003 by bringing plaint schedule property of the 1st defendant for an extent of Ac.0-48 cents in

R.S.No.354/2 of Kapavaram village to sale. The 1st defendant as JDr in EP

No.28/2011 filed a counter stating that he schedule property is joint family property of the 1st defendant who are undivided consists of his four daughters i.e., defendants 2 to 5 herein and one son who is no more recently died before marriage. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s

Court, Ramachandrapuram considered the objection raised by the 1st defendant and ordered the sale for 1/6th share in EP schedule property and the same was purchased by the plaintiff a participating in auction on 24.08.2015.

Thereafter, the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Ramachandrapuram issued sale certificate on 06.11.2015 in favour of plaintiff herein. The plaintiff obtained symbolic delivery of 1/6th share through EA No.226/2016, the said delivery was effected on 20.04.2016.

O.S.No.126/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 3 Judgment, dt. 07.08.2025Anaparthi

The plaint schedule property situated in Kapavaram village within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court. Hence, the suit.

3)After filing of the suit 1st defendant died. Learned counsel for plaintiff a memo stating that the legal representative of 1st defendant are already on record. 4th defendant filed her written statement and same was adopted by D2, D3 and D5. Brief averments of written statement are as follows:

(i) Defendants contended that they do not have knowledge about the suit proceedings in OS No.178/2003 or execution proceedings in EP

No.28/2011. Defendants further contended that the plaintiff is the grandson of one Posina Ramannadora, said Ramannadora and grandfather of defendants by name Dharmaraju are brothers. By taking advantage of family relationships, plaintiff created manipulated documents by playing fraud upon the Court and filed present false suit. 1st defendant died on 22.04.2021 by leaving behind his wife and D2 to D4. After the death of 1st defendant plaintiff filed the suit with false allegations. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right to claim relief of the partition. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Thus, the defendants prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4)Basing on the above pleadings, the Court framed the following issues for determination:

ISSUES:

1. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the plaint schedule property into six equal shares and for allotment of one such share to her?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of separate possession of his share in the plaint schedule property?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of future profits as prayed for?

O.S.No.126/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 4 Judgment, dt. 07.08.2025Anaparthi

5. To what relief?

5)During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, he examined himself as

PW.1 and examined one Posina Gopala Krishna as PW2 and got exhibited

Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of defendants, 4th defendant was examined as

DW1 and no documents were marked.

6)Heard the arguments on both sides and perused material on record.

7) Issue No.2 & 3:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the plaint

schedule property into six equal shares and for allotment of one

such share to her? Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of

separate possession of his share in the plaint schedule

property? (for the purpose of convenience of appreciation of evidence Issue Nos. 2 and 3 are answered first)

It is the theory of plaintiff that the suit schedule property is absolute of the property of the deceased 1st defendant and that the plaintiff purchased undivided 1/6th share of the same in auction conducted by Hon’ble Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Ramachandrapuram in EP No.28/2011 and that he

obtained sale certificate and symbolic delivery over the 1/6th share of suit schedule property. On contrary, the defendants contend that they are not aware of any proceedings between the deceased 1st defendant and the plaintiff and further contended that the plaintiff created the documents by playing fraud on the Court.

8)In support of his theory the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 by filing affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief and thereby reiterated the contents of the plaint in material particulars. The Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked through PW1. Ex.A1 is the original Sale Certificate issued by the

Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ramachandrapuram in favour of the

plaintiff dated 06.11.2015. On perusal of Ex.A1, it goes to show that plaintiff

O.S.No.126/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 5 Judgment, dt. 07.08.2025Anaparthi purchased 1/6th share in suit schedule property in auction conducted by the

Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ramachandrapuram in EP No.28/2011.

Ex.A2 is certified copy of delivery report along with delivery petition in EA

No.226/2016 in EP No.28/201. On perusal of Ex.A2 goes to show that plaintiff obtained the symbolic delivery of 1/6th share of the suit schedule property. Ex.A3 is the registration extract of the registered sale deed

No.711/1990 dated 26.04.1990. On perusal of Ex.A3 it can be seen that the deceased 1st defendant purchased the suit schedule property on 26.04.1990. Ex.A4 is the encumbrance certificate of suit schedule property issued by the SRO, Biccavolu. Ex.A4 contains the entries regarding the purchase of suit schedule property by the deceased 1st defendant on 26.04.1990 and also regarding sale certificate issued by Hon’ble Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Ramachandrapuram. Plaintiff also examined PW2, who

corroborates the version of PW1.

9)Ex.A3 clearly shows that the suit schedule property was originally absolute property of the deceased 1st defendant. Although, defendants denied its genuinety but they did not adduce any satisfactory evidence to disprove Ex.A3. Since Ex.A3 is a registered document it shall be presumed to be genuine. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 clearly shows that the plaintiff purchased 1/6th share of suit schedule property and obtained the symbolic delivery. It is not the case of the defendants that they challenged the execution proceedings before appellant Court. Hence, Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2 become final. Thus, the plaintiff proved that he is entitled to 1/6th share of suit schedule property.

10)On the other hand, 4th defendant filed her chief affidavit as

DW1 by reiterating the contents of her written statement. Except for filing affidavit, defendants did not adduce any positive evidence to disprove the case of the plaintiff.

11) As it is held that the suit schedule property is absolute property of the 1st defendant, defendant Nos.2 to 5 are not coparcenaries of

O.S.No.126/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 6 Judgment, dt. 07.08.2025Anaparthi the suit schedule property. However, by virtue of death of 1st defendant, D2 to D5 including any other heirs of deceased 1st defendant may be entitled for share in suit schedule property subject to law of succession, if the deceased 1st defendant did not execute any testament.

12) In view of the above discussion this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share of the suit schedule property and also for separate possession of the same. I answer the issues accordingly.

13) Issue No.1:

Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

As already held 2nd defendant to 5th defendant are not coparcenaries of suit schedule property and so the same was not joint property of the deceased 1st defendant and D2 to D5. During the cross examination it is admitted by the PW1 that the deceased 1st defendant as a wife, who is alive. The wife of 1st defendant was not impleaded as the defendant in the present suit. In a suit for partition all the coparcenaries are the necessary parties. The wife of 1st defendant is also not a coparcenary.

However, in the present case as the property was self acquired property, the legal heirs of deceased 1st defendant are entitled to the share of the suit schedule property that the deceased 1st defendant is entitled. Thus, D2 to

D5 including wife of deceased 1st defendant may acquire share in suit schedule property subsequent to death of 1st defendant subject to law of succession, but not as coparcenaries.

14)It is settled law that on failure to implead all the legal representatives of the deceased party, the suit shall not abate if there is substantive representation by the parties already on record. Although, one of the legal representatives of deceased 1st defendant was not impleaded as party, the suit shall be not abate in its entirety as there is substantive representation for the estate of deceased 1st defendant. Hence, this Court is

O.S.No.126/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 7 Judgment, dt. 07.08.2025Anaparthi of the opinion that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. I answer the point accordingly.

15) ISSUE NO.4

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of future profits as prayed for? Although, the plaintiff claimed future profits, no evidence was adduced regarding the quantification of the profits and so plaintiff is at liberty to file a separate application for future profits. I answer issued No.4 accordingly.

16) ISSUE NO.4:

To what relief?

In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs by dividing suit schedule property into two shares i.e., 1/6th share and 5/6th share and 1/6th share of suit schedule property is allotted to the plaintiff and remaining 5/6th share is allotted to the legal heirs of deceased 1st defendant. Plaintiff is at liberty to file separate application for future profits.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 07 th day of August, 2025.

Sd/-M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

PW1: Dt.06.02.2025: Posina Rambabu PW2: Dt.21.04.2025: Posina Gopala Krishna

FOR DEFENDANT:

DW1: Dt.15.05.2025: Marnidi Swathi.

O.S.No.126/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 8 Judgment, dt. 07.08.2025Anaparthi

EXHIBITS MARKED:

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Original Sale Certificate issued by the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ramachandrapuram in favour of the plaintiff dated 06.11.2015. Ex.A2: Certified copy of delivery report along with delivery petition in EA No.226/2016 on the file of the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ramachandrapuram. Ex.A3: Registration extract of the registered sale deed No.711/1990 dated 26.04.1990 stands in the name of the 1st defendant. Ex.A4: Encumbrance certificate issued by the SRO, Biccavolu.

For Defendant: NIL

Sd/-M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI.

O.S.No.126/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 1 Doth Order & DecreeAnaparthi

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI

PRESENT: SRI M.VAMSI KRISHNA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI

THURSDAY, THIS THE 07 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

O.S.No.126/2021

Between: Posina Rambabu S/o Subba Rayudu, Hindu, aged 40 years, Business and Cultivation, R/o D.No.4-7, Kapavaram, Biccavolu Mandal, E.G.District …Plaintiff

AND

1) Posina Nageswara Rao, S/o Dharma Raju, Hindu, age 55 years, Cultivation, R/o D.No.4-3, Kapavaram village, Biccavolu Mandal, E.G.District (died)

2) Mallidi Prabha W/o Raja (Professions Courier) Hindu, aged 30 years, R/o 3rd floor, Penupothula Apartments, Opp: Railway Kalyana Mandapam, Main Road, Samarlakota, Samarlkota Mandal, E.G.District.

3) Lokareddi Poorna W/o Bhaskara Rao, hindu, age 27 years, R/o Sidda Vari Veedhi, Chebrolu, Gollaprolu Mandal, E.G.District, Pithapuram Mandal, E.G.District.

4) Marnidi Swathi W/o Rangababu, (Water Plant) Hindu, age 25 years, R/o Lions Club Street, Madapuram Road, Pithapuram, Pithapuram Mandal, E.G.District.

5) Posina Jyothi D/o Nageswara Rao, age 23 years, R/o D.No.43-3, Kapavaarm village, Biccavolu Mandal, E.G.District …Defendant Nos.1 to 5 This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule property into six equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff by metes and bounds and for costs of the suit and for other reliefs.

Plaint presented on: 13.02.2020 Plaint filed on: 06.08.2021

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction under A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act is Rs.2,52,000/-. On which a court fee of Rs.5,026/- is paid under Sec.19 r/w Art (b) and (c) Schedule I Tab II of A.P.C.F & S.V Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 24.08.2015 when the plaintiff purchased 1/6th share in the plaint schedule property and when on

O.S.No.126/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 2 Doth Order & DecreeAnaparthi 24.08.2015 the plaintiff brought the plaint schedule property for sale and when on 24.08.2015 the Senior Civil Judge’s Court conducted the auction in

E.P.No.28/2011 for sale of 1/6th share in the plaint schedule property and on

all subsequent days the plaintiff after getting permission became the higher bidder in the auction held and on all subsequent days the plaintiff obtained sale certificate for 1/6th share in the plaint schedule property in

E.P.no.28/2011 and on all subsequent day the plaintiff obtained symbolic

delivery of 1/6th share in plaint schedule property through E.A.No.226/2016 and when the said delivery was effect by the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge court on 20.04.2016 and on all subsequent days the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of 1/6th share and for separate possession the same by partitioning the same with the defendants herein and on all subsequent days where the plaint schedule property situated at Kapavaram village, Biccavole Mandal are all comes under the jurisdiction of this court. This suit is coming on 31.07.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.V.Narayana Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff, 1st defendant died and Sri Kanda Venkata Ramana, Advocate for defendant Nos.2 to 5 and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court, DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

(i) that the suit is hereby preliminary decreed with costs;

(ii) that the suit schedule property is divided into two shares i.e., 1/6th share and 5/6th share and 1/6th share of suit schedule property is allotted to the plaintiff;

(iii) that the remaining 5/6th share is allotted to the legal heirs of deceased 1st defendant;

(iv) that the plaintiff is at liberty to file separate application for future profits;

(ii) that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.25,200/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 07th day of August, 2025.

Sd/-M.VAMSI KRISHNA.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI.

O.S.No.126/2021Junior Civil Judge Court,

Page 3 Doth Order & DecreeAnaparthi

Memorandum of Costs

For plaintiff Rs. For defendantRs.

1. Stamp on Vakalat 02-00 No bill of costs is filed

2. Stamp on plaint 5,026-00

3. Process fee 100-00

4. Sr. Advocate fee 15,000-00

5. Jr. Advocate fee 5,000-00

5. Typing charges 35-00

6. Writing charges 37-00 Costs allowed 25,200-00

PLAINT SCHEDULE

District : East Godavari Sub-Registry : Biccavole

Mandal : Biccavolu Village : Kapavaram G.P

A Zeroythi dry land an extent of Ac.0-48 cts or 0.194 hts situated in

R.S.No.354/2 towards southern side in the land out of Ac.1-11 cents in the land towards western side out of full extent of Ac.3-64 cts within the following boundaries:

East : Land Datla Venkatapathi Raju garu.

West : Puntha

North : Land belongs to Posina Dharmaraju in this survey number remaining land

South : Land belongs to Suri Satyam and others.

Within the above boundaries an extent of Ac.0-48 cts in which 1/6th share is to be partitioned and to delivered possession to the plaintiff.

Sd/-M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAPARTHI.

CC/236/2020 Acquitted

Sub Inspector of Police, Anaparthi vs Maddila Surya Sridhar

19 May 2026

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE::

ANAPARTHI

PRESENT: SRI M.VAMSI KRISHNA,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANAPARTHI

TUESDAY, THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.

C.C.NO.236/2020

BETWEEN:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anaparthi Police Station. …Complainant.

AND

1) Maddila Surya Sridathar s/o Ananada Rao, A/38 yrs, C/Munneru Kapu, 49- 51-1/1, Flot No. 202, Second Floor, Sankalap Paradise, NGOs Colony, shanitpuram, Visakhapatnam( Urban)

2) Maddila Damayamti w/o Surya Ananda Rao, A/55, C/Munneru Kapu, 49- 51-1/1, Flot No. 202, Second Floor, Sankalap Paradise, NGOs Colony, shanitpuram, Visakhapatnam( Urban) (DIED)

3) Maddila Ananda Rao s/o Tarani Rao, A/63, C/Munneru Kapu, 53-19/21, Chaitanyanagar, Sri Venkata Santhoshi Nilayam, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam, P&T colony.

4) Nagulakonda Soujanya @ Maddila Soujanya W/o Nagulakonda Ravi Kiran, A/34, C/Munneru Kapu, Chithanya Nagar, Vishakapatnam(Urban)

5) Maigapu Chaitnaya W/o AdityaVenu Gopal, A/34, DNo.49-53-18/1/1, C/Munneru Kapu, Bala Sasthri Layout, Seethammadara, near Sindhura Guest House Vishakapatnam (Urban) P&T colony.

6) Maigapu Adiya Venugopal, S/o Ram Prasad Rao, A/47, C/Suryabalija, DNo.49-53-18/1, Bala Sasthri Layout, Seethammadara near Sindhura Guest House, Vishakapatnam (Urban). (Case against A2 was abated on 17.10.2022) (Case against A3 to A6 is quashed as per orders of the Hon’ble in Crl.Petition No.10620/2022 dt.14.10.2024)

...Accused Nos.1 to 6

This case came before me on 08.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for dejure complainant and of Sri TVV Ramana Murthy, Advocate for accused No.1, upon hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day and this court delivered, the following:

2 :: J U D G M E N T ::

1) The State: Sub Inspector of Police, Anaparthi Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 6 in Cr.No.232/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 r/w 34 IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

2) The brief allegations in the Report are as follows:

(i) The complainant Kondru @ Maddila Poornima is the resident of

Vijaya Krishna Apartement, Flot No. S-9, Indira Nagar, Anaparthi village & mandal along with her parents. She is wedded wife of A-1 and de-facto complainant in this case. The scene of offence is situated at Maddilapalem of

Visakapatnam and Anaparthi Village & Mandal.

(ii) In the month of June-2016 the marriage looks and talks are held at the house of LW-4 Rajahmundry. Later on 10.07.2016, LW-2 and elders visited Vizag and at that time, the in laws of LW-1 asked to give Rs.6,00,000/- and 2 sovereigns of Gold to them as dowry and LW-2 agreed to give dowry and Gold ornaments. After some days, A-1, A-2 and A-3 came to house of

LW1 at Anaparthi and took the cash amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and 2 sovereigns of gold in the presence of her relatives. As A-1 is native of vizag, on 17.08.2016 elders performed marriage of LW-1 with the A-1 in the temple of

Sri Satyanarayana Swamy at Annavaram on her own expenses. At the time of her engagement, A-4 quarreled with LW-1. Later they held marriage reception at Munna Church, Rajahmundry. After her marriage, LW-1 & A-1 living at the house of her in laws in vizag, the LW-1 observed that A-1 chit chatting with another women in phone and several time the LW-1 asked the A-1 about his act, but he didn’t respond. Later the LW-1 informed the same to her in laws, they didn’t care her about her words, they abused her and warned the LW-1.

One fine day the LW-1 lifted the phone of A-1 and asked the another side person that why are you calling to A-1, she replied that the same is asks to your husband and switched off the phone.

3

(iii) Since then A-1 made harassment on LW-1 in mentally and physically with petty disputes and suspected her fidelity also. At that time one

Venkatarao (LW-8) who is the family friend also admonished to A-1. Due to unbearable harassment, the LW-1 informed the same to her LW-2. On that

LW-2 and her younger mother visited Vizag and asked about the harassment and then they beat her with hands and threatened her mother and younger mother with dire consequences by her in laws.

(iv) Later A-2, A-3, A-4 and LW-5 instigated the A-1 to leave her and marry another one and get more dowry and even though necked out her from their house, she staying at her husband. Since then A-1 and his friends came to the house and asked her to bring omlets and stuff into alcohol and A-1 consumed alcohol along with his friends in his house.

(v) One day, the A-1 and his relative by name Challakonda Bhaskar (Chinni) and his friend drunk alcohol in her house and while she is sleeping on her bed, Ch. Bhaskar (Chinni) came into her bed room and behaved indecently. When the LW-1 tried to inform the same to A-1, but he was in fully drunken state. Later on the next day, she told the same to her in laws but they criticized her and deaf ear her words and necked out her from their house.

(vi) On that, the LW-1 reached to her parental house and informed the same. Then LW-2 and younger mother went to Vizag along with her and asked the same. On that, they gave permission to get into the house. After discharged her mother and younger mother from vizag, her in-laws started harassment in physically and mentally.

(vii) Due evil manner kept in the mind, her in laws, they used to quarrel with her in petty disputes and abused her. Due to unbearable act, she returned to home in the month of December. Later A-1 came to LW-1 at

Anaparthi and stayed at there for two months. On that time, the A-1 used to quarrel with her. During their conjugal life, she conceived. Then A-1 went to vizag for intimate the same to his parents but he didn’t returned back and didn’t look after her welfare.

4

(viii) After she conceived 4th month, A-1 came to her house at

Anaparthi and abused her that why are you asking me to come to Anaparthi and beat her with hands and abused with filthy language. Due to physical and mental harassment, she aborted. Due to abortion, she felt sad, while so, her husband used to quarreling with her through phone and stopped to call her.

Later 20 days of abortion, her mother and junior mother and her maternal uncle went to Vizag along with her. On that her in-laws quarreled with them and A-1 abused them filthy language and humiliate. At that time A-1 and her sister in-law’s husband Mygapu Aditya Venu Gopal who is the husband of her sister-in-law by name Chaitanya demanded them to bring additional dowry an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. Then they expressed her inability and threatened them that if they give Rs.12,00,000/- cash amount as additional dowry, then only accept her to enter into the house or otherwise necked out her.

(ix) While, her A-1 going to Kuwait, the LW-1 went to vizag and staying at there for some days. Again her in laws and her husband harassed her for dowry and used to make quarreling with her. Later her husband went to

Kuwait, he sent money through NEFT to account of LW-1, then she sent the same to her in laws.

(x) Later on 28th July 2018, A-1 came to India and at that time, the

LW-2 suffering with rubella disease, she didn’t go to Vizag. Later, after cure of her mother health, she along with her brother went to Vizag on 04.06.2018 but

A-1 and in-laws abused her with filthy language and necked out from her house. Later on the next day, her in laws asked about the additional dowry, then LW-1 requested that they cannot give such amount. On that A-1 and her in-laws beat her with hands and abused her.

(xi) On 06.08.2018 A-1, A-2 and A-3 and A-4 to A-5 abused the LW-1 and demanded to bring the additional dowry an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- and necked out from their house. On the strength of report of LW.1, LW.9 has been registered a case in Cr.No.232/2018 U/sec 498(A), r/w 34 IPC and Sec.

3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Anaparthi PS on 25-08-2019 at 7-00 PM and

5

investigation into. During the course of investigation the LW-9 examined the

LW-1, later the LW-10 visited the scene of offence, examined the same, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and secured as many as 8 witnesses and recorded their detailed statements in his Case Diary Part-II.

LW-10 served the notice to the A-1 USec.41(A) Cr.P.C on 29-08-2018. LW.11

Sri L. Srinu, SI of Police has taken up further investigation in this case as

LW.10 transferred to DSB Kakinada from Anaparthi. LW12 served the notice to the A-2 to A-6 u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against A1 to A6. Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323 r/w 34 IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act against the accused Nos.1 to 6.

4. The case against accused No.2 was abated on 17.10.2022. The case against A3 to A6 is quashed as per orders of the Hon’ble High Court of

A.P vide orders in Crl.Petition No.10620/2022 dt.14.10.2024 and the case remaining against A1 only.

5. On appearance of A1, copies of the documents were furnished to the accused No.1, as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C).

5. Accused No.1 was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C, read over and explained the charge in Telugu for the offence under Section 498-A, 323 IPC r/w 34 of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act. He denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2. Exhibits P1 to P3 are marked on behalf of the prosecution.

7. The examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material against the accused No.1 from the prosecution witnesses.

6

8. Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Learned

Counsel for the accused.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the

accused for the offence under Section 498-A, 323 IPC r/w 34 of IPC

and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT:

To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and

Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. PW1 is the victim cum complainant in the present case. PW2 is the mother of PW1.

11. To prove the offence under Sec.498-A, 323 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that accused being the husband of PW1 have subjected PW1 to cruelty.

12. To prove the offence U/Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the prosecution has to establish that accused received and demanded additional dowry.

13. PW1 is the victim-cum-complainant in this case. According to her, she signed on the report over minor disputes at the instance of elders and thus resiled from her earlier statement made in Ex.P2. Therefore, her evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case.

14. PW2 who is mother of PW1 has deposed that police neither examined her nor recorded her statement. During cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she has stated before the police as per Ex.P3/161

Cr.P.C. statement. PW2 did not support the prosecution case and she turned hostile. PW2 deposed contrary version to her earlier version. Therefore, her evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case.

15. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused here in subjected PW1 to cruelty and harassed both physically and mentally. PW1

7

who is none other than the victim in the present case did not support the prosecution case and she turned hostile. PW2 who is mother of PW1 also did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Absolutely, there is no material placed by prosecution to established that the accused here in subjected defacto complainant to cruelty and harassed her both physically and mentally.

16. In the light of the above discussion, this court holds that, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused for the offence

U/sec.498-A, 323 IPC r/w 34 of Indian Penal code 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

17. In the result, accused No.1 found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A, 323 IPC r/w 34 of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and accordingly they are acquitted for the same Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused No.1 shall remain in force for further period of Six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of May, 2026.

SD/- M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANAPARTHI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1 Dt.08.05.2026 Kondra Poornima. PW2 Dt.08.05.2026 Kondra Jayalakshmi.

FOR DEFENCE: -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Signature of PW1 on the report. Ex.P2 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1.

8

Ex.P3 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: NIL

SD/- M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANAPARTHI

9 CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: ANAPARTHI

C.C.No.236/2020

01. Date of offence : Prior to 25.08.2019

02. Date of Complaint : 25.08.2019

03. Date of Apprehension of accused : 29.08.2018 41-A Cr.P.C notice.

04. Release on bail : 29.08.2018

05. Commencement of trial : 08.05.2026

06. Closure of trial : 08.05.2026

07. Date of Judgment : 19.05.2026

08. Name of the complainant : State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anaparthi P.S

9. Name of the accused :

1) Maddila Surya Sridathar s/o Ananada Rao, A/38 yrs, C/Munneru Kapu, 49- 51-1/1, Flot No. 202, Second Floor, Sankalap Paradise, NGOs Colony, shanitpuram, Visakhapatnam( Urban)

2) Maddila Damayamti w/o Surya Ananda Rao, A/55, C/Munneru Kapu, 49- 51-1/1, Flot No. 202, Second Floor, Sankalap Paradise, NGOs Colony, shanitpuram, Visakhapatnam( Urban) (DIED)

3) Maddila Ananda Rao s/o Tarani Rao, A/63, C/Munneru Kapu, 53-19/21, Chaitanyanagar, Sri Venkata Santhoshi Nilayam, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam, P&T colony.

4) Nagulakonda Soujanya @ Maddila Soujanya W/o Nagulakonda Ravi Kiran, A/34, C/Munneru Kapu, Chithanya Nagar, Vishakapatnam(Urban)

5) Maigapu Chaitnaya W/o AdityaVenu Gopal, A/34, DNo.49-53-18/1/1, C/Munneru Kapu, Bala Sasthri Layout, Seethammadara, near Sindhura Guest House Vishakapatnam (Urban) P&T colony.

10. Offence : U/Secs.498-A, 323 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Not Guilty

10

13. Sentence :

In the result, accused No.1 found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A, 323 IPC r/w 34 of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly they are acquitted for the same Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused No.1 shall remain in force for further period of Six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

14. Reasons for delay : NIL

SD/- M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANAPARTHI

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

CC/73/2018 Acquitted

The Station House Officer, Biccavole Police Station vs Thota Pothuraju

07 Aug 2025

C.C.No.73/2018J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 1 of 8 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

ANAPARTHI

PRESENT: SRI M.VAMSI KRISHNA,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANAPARTHI.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 07 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

C.C.NO.73/2018

BETWEEN: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Biccavolu Police Station.

…Complainant.

AND

1) Thota Pothuraju, S/o Mandali, Age 19 years, Kothapeta, Rathicheruvupeta, Biccavole village and Mandal.

2) Shaik Kalisha, S/o Mahaboob Jani, Age 31 years, D.No.9-56, Yerrapragada Street, Kothapeta, Biccavole Village and Mandal.

3) Shaik Khajamohiddin Sishti @ Khaja, S/o Mahaboob Jani, Age 25 years, Uma Maheswara Rao Street, Kothapeta, Biccavole Village and Mandal.

...Accused Nos.1 to 3

This case came before me on 05.08.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for dejure complainant and of Sri V.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, Advocate for accused, upon hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day and this court delivered, the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Biccavole Police station laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.147/2017 for the offences which are punishable U/Secs.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

The offence had occurred at Kothapeta, Biccavole Village. PW1 is the injured person and defacto complainant and he is resident of Kothapeta,

Biccavole village and Mandal. On 25.12.2017 evening, PW1 came to his

C.C.No.73/2018J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 2 of 8 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi house from the field and taken meals and when sleeping in the house, night at about 09:30 PM, he heard the words of his elder brother Prabhaakra Rao/PW2 and he came to outside of his house and seen Kothapalli Prasad and Jalluri

Venkannababu are disputing and when his elder brother is asking them why are you disputing, they are not hearing his words. On that PW1 told to his elder brother that they are not hearing your words and so you come into the house. In the meanwhile the accused A1 to A3 came in awful drunken state and abusing PW1 why are you talking loudly and those persons made assault over PW1 and beat him. A1 beat PW1 with an iron pipe beside his right eye and caused bleeding injury. A2 and A3 made PW1 fell down and kicked him over his nose and blood oozed from the nose. Those three accused persons beat PW1 with hands and kicked with legs as they like. Then the time is about 10:00 P.M. When the accused are beating PW1, his elder brother PW2, PW3,

PW6, PW5 are present there and separated PW1. When PW1 is with bleeding injuries, Mandapeta Dorababu and Noothangi Srinu taken him to Community

Health Centre, Anaparthi on the motorcycle and admitted him for treatment.

On receipt of MLC intimation of PW1 from CHC, Anaparthi, PW7 visited the hospital, recorded the statement of PW1 and sent them to SHO, Biccavole

PS on the point of jurisdiction, where PW9 SI of Police registered the case as in Cr.No.147/2017 for the offence under Sec.324 r/w 34 IPC of Biccavole P.S on 26.12.2017 and investigated into the case having visited CHC, Anaparthi, examined PW1 and recorded his statement, visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, he examined witnesses and recorded their statements. PW2 produced the crime weapon i.e., iron pipe to PW9 and he seized the same for the purpose of investigation. PW9 arrested the accused NOs.1 to 3 on 12.02.2018 and served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notices to them and released on station bail. PW8

CAS, CHC, Anaparthi who trated PW1 issued wound certificate with his opinion stating that the injuries caused to PW1 are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused

C.C.No.73/2018J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 3 of 8 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi

Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Secs.323, 324 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the charge.

3. On the basis of the allegations under charge sheet and on perusal of other material which is available on record, cognizance was taken for the offences which are punishable under Secs.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3.

4. On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 3, copies of documents were furnished to accused Nos.1 to 3 as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. The charge for the offences under Secs.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC has been framed and read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Telugu for which accused Nos.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During trial, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to

P6 and MO1 on behalf of prosecution. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material against the accused Nos.1 to 3 in the evidence of witnesses of prosecution by explaining the same in Telugu for which accused Nos.1 to 3 denied the same and it was reported by accused

Nos.1 to 3 that there was no evidence on behalf of the accused Nos.1 to 3.

7. The points for determination are:-

1) Whether the prosecution is successful in establishing that the A1 to A3 committed the offences under Secs.324

r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt or not?

2) Whether the prosecution is successful in establishing that the A1 to A3 committed the offences under Secs.324,

323 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt or not?

3) Whether A1 to A3 are liable for conviction under

Sec.248(2) for the offences which are punishable under

Secs.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC or not?

C.C.No.73/2018J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 4 of 8 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi

8. POINT NO.1 AND 2:

The story of prosecution in brief is that, on the night of Christmas 2017, at about 09.30 PM one Kottapally Prasad and Jalluri Venkanna Babu are disputing with each other and Prabhakara Rao/LW2 is trying to pacify them but they are not heeding him. Hearing the noise, Defacto complainant/LW1 who is the elder brother of LW2 came out of his house and asked his elder brother to come inside as they are not heeding him. In the meanwhile, accused nos. 1 to 3, who are in drunken state, abused LW1 and assaulted him. A1 beat LW1 with an iron pipe beside his right eye, thereby caused bleeding injury. A2 and A3 made LW1 fell down and hit him over his nose and blood oozed from his nose. All the three accused beat PW1 with hands and kicked with legs, as they like. LW1 was shifted to Community Health Center with bleeding injuries, Anaparthy by Madapaka Dorababu /LW4 and Nuthangi

Srinu/LW5.

9. To prove their story, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and MO.1. P.W1 is the defacto complainant, who deposed that on that day of incident, he heard shouting of his brother and when he came out, he saw A1 to A3 shouting on P.W.2 and P.W3. He further deposed that when he is trying to stop them, A1 caused bleeding injury to him with iron pipe on his left eye and A1 to A3 pushed him down and A2 and A3 kicked him with his legs and on that he sustained bleeding injury on his nose.

During the cross examination, he changed his version and deposed that he received injury on his right eye.

10. PW2, who is the brother of P.W1 deposed that there was alteration between PW3/Kothapalli Prasad and one Jalluri Venkannababu and he tried to admonish them, and on that PW1 came out and asked him to come inside and on that A1 to A3 attacked him and also A1 attacked PW1 on left eye with iron pipe and A2, A3 pushed PW1 down and kicked with him their legs thereby PW1 sustained bleedings on nose and left eye. He further deposed that A1 to A3 were drunk at that time. Even during cross examination PW2

C.C.No.73/2018J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 5 of 8 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi deposed that A1 attacked PW1 on left eye.

11. PW3/ Kothapalli Prasad deposed that while he was altercating with one Venkannababu PW2 tried to admonish them and on that A1 to A3 who were drunk, revolted against PW2. He further deposed that when PW1 asked PW2 to come inside, A1 to A3 attacked PW1 and pushing him down and kicking with their legs and A1 attacked PW1 on right eye with iron pipe and A2 and A3 kicked PW1 on his nose and that PW1 sustained bleeding injuries.

12. PW4 who is said to be an eye witness, did not support the story of prosecution and resailed from the earlier 161 Cr.P.C., statement i.e., Ex.P2.

PW5 who is said to be an eye witness and said to have shifted PW1 to hospital along with PW6, deposed that he came to know from the villagers and the wife of PW1 that A1 to A3 beat PW1 and that villagers shifted PW1 to hospital. PW6, who said to have shifted PW1 to hospital along with PW5, deposed that on the date of offence while he was going to his home, by the time he reached village center he has seen PW1 with bleeding injuries on his right eye and nose and immediately, he and PW5 shifted PW1 to hospital.

During cross examination he deposed that he did not see any dispute and he do not know what occurred before he reached the scene of offence.

13. PW7 deposed about his receiving of MLC hospital intimation i.e.,

Ex.P3 and recording of statement of PW1 i.e., Ex.P1. PW8 who is the doctor, who issued wound certificate Ex.P4 of PW1, deposed about the examination of PW1 and issuing of wound certificate. From averments of Ex.P4, PW8 examined PW1 at 11.30 PM and found pain and tenderness over the neck of

PW1 and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. During cross examination he admitted to the suggestion of learned counsel for accused that there is a possibility of receiving similar injury when someone fell down from the bike.

14. PW9 who is investigation officer deposed in lines of his investigation about registering of FIR/Ex.P5 and preparing rough sketch/Ex.P6 and recording 161 Cr.P.C., statements of witnesses. He further deposed that

C.C.No.73/2018J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 6 of 8 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi

PW2 handed over crime weapon/MO.1 to him.

15. On careful appreciation of prosecution evidence it can be seen that some of the eye witnesses state that PW1 received injury on left eye, whereas other deposed that PW1 received injury on right eye. Even if the same is ignored, PW1 himself deposed in examination in chief that he received bleeding injury on his left eye and again deposed in his cross examination that he received injury on the right eye. From the evidence, PW1 was immediately shifted to hospital and he was examined by the Doctor at 11.30 PM i.e., within two hours from the alleged time of attack. However, Ex.P4 wound certificate does not reveal any injuries on the any eye of PW1 or on his nose. The medical evidence is in contradiction to that of ocular evidence. Even the ocular evidence has its own contradictions.

16. Although, PW5 is said to have seen A1 to A3 beating PW1, he deposed as if he knew about the incident from the villagers and he is a hearsay witness. Although, MO.1 alleged crime weapon was marked through

PW9, the same was not confronted either to PW1 or eye witnesses. In view of the material contradictions among the prosecution witnesses and of the contradictions medical and ocular evidences, it is unsafe to hold that A1 to A3 attacked PW1.

17. Having contradictions, the prosecution witnesses failed to inspire the confidence of this court in believing that the accused Nos.1 to 3 attacked the defacto complainant. Thus, the offences U/Secs.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC against the A1 to A3 stands unproved.

18. In view of the above discussion, this court of the opinion that the prosecution has failed in establishing the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt and so the A1 to A3 are entitled for acquittal.

19. POINT NO.3:

IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences which are punishable U/Secs.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, accused

Nos.1 to 3 are acquittedU/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/Secs.324,

C.C.No.73/2018J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 7 of 8 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi 323 r/w 34 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 07 th day of August, 2025.

Sd/-M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANAPARTHI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1 Dt.17.02.2025 : Sundareddi Srinivasa Rao. PW2 Dt.17.02.2025 : Sundareddi Prabhakar. PW3 Dt.17.02.2025 : Kottapalli Prasad. PW4 Dt.30.04.2025 : Gubbala Sai Prasanna. PW5 Dt.30.04.2025 : Nuthangi Srinu. PW6 Dt.14.05.2025 : Mandapaka Dorababu. PW7 Dt.27.06.2025 : S.Srinubabu, the then Head Constable of Anaparthi PS. PW8 Dt.27.06.2025 : Dr.T.Rama Gurreddy, the then CAS, Area Hospital, Anaparthi. PW9 Dt.15.07.2025 : B.Vinay Pratap, SI of Police, Biccavole P.S. FOR DEFENCE: -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 Statement of PW1. Ex.P2 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P3 Hospital intimation. Ex.P4 Wound certificate of PW1. Ex.P5 First Information Report in Cr.No.147/2017 of Biccavole P.S. Ex.P6 Rough sketch.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

MO1: Iron pipe.

Sd/- M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANAPARTHI

C.C.No.73/2018J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Page 8 of 8 Judgment, dt.07.08.2025Anaparthi

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: ANAPARTHI

C.C.No.73/2018

01. Date of offence : 25.12.2017

02. Date of Complaint : 26.12.2017

03. Date of Apprehension of accused : 12.02.2018 (41-A Cr.P.C)

04. Release on bail : 12.02.2018

05. Commencement of trial : 17.02.2025

06. Closure of trial : 30.07.2025

07. Date of Judgment : 07.08.2025

08. Name of the complainant :

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Biccavole Police Station.

9. Name of the accused :

1) Thota Pothuraju, S/o Mandali, Age 19 years, Kothapeta, Rathicheruvupeta, Biccavole village and Mandal.

2) Shaik Kalisha, S/o Mahaboob Jani, Age 31 years, D.No.9-56, Yerrapragada Street, Kothapeta, Biccavole Village and Mandal.

3) Shaik Khajamohiddin Sishti @ Khaja, S/o Mahaboob Jani, Age 25 years, Uma Maheswara Rao Street, Kothapeta, Biccavole Village and Mandal.

10. Offence : U/Secs.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Not Guilty

13. Sentence : A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences which are punishable U/Secs.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquittedU/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/Secs.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

14. Reasons for delay : NIL

Sd/-M.VAMSI KRISHNA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANAPARTHI

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Order Record 3,146 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/236/2020	Sub Inspector of Police, Anaparthi vs Maddila Surya Sridhar	19 May 2026	Judgment	Acquitted
MC/21/2025	Bera Ramaswamy vs Bera Gowripathi	19 May 2026	Order	—
EP/17/2026	Sangiseeti Surayya vs Buddavarapu Nagamani	15 May 2026	Order	—
EP/18/2026	Tamalampudi Naga Venkata Surendra Reddy vs Sheik Kanna Saheb	15 May 2026	Order	—
OS/51/2026	Padala Vijaya Ananda Reddy vs Pulagam Srinivasa Reddy	15 May 2026	Judgment	—
OS/54/2026	Sathi Satyanarayana Reddy vs Tatapudi Venkata Rao	15 May 2026	Judgment	—
OS/243/2025	Sabbella Eswara Reddy vs Sarikuppala Prasad	15 May 2026	Judgment	—
PRC/17/2025	SHO Anaparthi PS vs Gathikolu Durga Prasad	15 May 2026	Order	—
EP/33/2025	Padala Vasanth Kumar Reddy vs Karri Satyanarayana	14 May 2026	Order	—
EP/60/2025	Kovvuri Suryanarayana Reddy vs Ganapathiraju Madhavi	14 May 2026	Order	—
OS/27/2026	Mallidi Veeraghava Reddy vs Kota Lakshmi	14 May 2026	Judgment	—
OS/300/2025	Tondapu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy vs Surisetti Rambabu	14 May 2026	Judgment	—
PRC/23/2025	SHO Anaparthi PS vs Padala Nagireddy alias Padala Naga Lakshmi Narayana Reddy	14 May 2026	Order	—
EP/8/2025	Karri veerreddy vs Sondi Basavayya	13 May 2026	Order	—
CC/218/2026	SHO Biccavolu PS vs Rapolu Ramakrishna alias Bengal Tiger	13 May 2026	Judgment	—
EP/15/2022	Sesetti Chinni Krishna vs Aalamuri Raj Kumar	12 May 2026	Order	—
OS/332/2025	Padala Veeranjaneya Reddy vs Padlaa Srinivasa Reddy	11 May 2026	Judgment	—
EP/9/2024	Patchimalla Sathi Babu vs Petta Sesha Ratnam	08 May 2026	Order	—
PRC/1/2026	SHO Anaparthi PS vs Nallamilli Aditya Reddy	08 May 2026	Order	—
OS/92/2020	Nallamilli Kumar Veerendra Reddy vs Nallamilli Rama Krishna Reddy	07 May 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1760/2023	Kovvuri Venkata Durga Reddy vs Sayana Kesavardhana Rao	07 May 2026	Order	—
MC/1/2026	Kadiyala Vijaya Lakshmi vs Kadiayala Raju alias Raja Babu	07 May 2026	Order	—
EP/22/2023	Kapu Ravi Chandra vs Neeli Dhanunjaya Raju	06 May 2026	Order	—
OS/9/2021	Bobba Seetharatnam vs Nekkanti S V V V Bhaskara Rao	06 May 2026	Judgment	—
OS/73/2022	Tadi Vijay Kumar Reddy vs Mattaparthi Srihari	05 May 2026	Judgment	—
OS/152/2025	Muthareddy Rama Krishna vs Yasalapu Narasimha Murthy	04 May 2026	Judgment	—
OS/289/2025	Anuminchipalli Veera Brahmam vs Kesankurthi Mangadevi	04 May 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1/2026	SHO Anaparthi PS vs Vemagiri Harish	01 May 2026	Judgment	—
CC/70/2026	SHO Rayavaram PS vs Karingi Siva Shankar Subrahmanayam	01 May 2026	Judgment	—
CC/159/2026	SHO Biccavolu PS vs Rayudu Durga Rao	01 May 2026	Judgment	—
CC/164/2018	Sathi Krishna Reddy vs Smt.Lakamsani Vijaya Lakshmi	01 May 2026	Order	—
EP/6/2026	Pulagam Narayana Reddy vs Chandrasekharuni Uday Syam Kumar	30 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/20/2023	Keta Tatayya vs Vepada Vara Lakshmi	30 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/51/2025	Kovvuri Durga Gopala Rama Reddy vs Avvari Sridevi	30 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/323/2025	Tamalampudi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy vs Dandabathula Arujun Rao	30 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
EP/10/2026	Chirla Srinivasa Reddy vs Nulaka Yasodha	29 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/11/2026	Sabbaapu Veeranna vs Injeti Anil Raju	29 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/55/2020	Vanga Ramakrishna Reddy vs Vanga Veera Venkata Lakshmi Kumari	28 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/211/2022	Jalluri Bala thirupathi Venkateswarlu vs Bandi Kondala Rao	28 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/78/2026	SHO Rayavaram PS vs Sathi Narendra Reddy	28 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
A.T.C./6/2022	Sadhe Venkata Ramana vs Karri Madhusudhana Reddy	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/45/2023	Gandi Venkateswara Rao vs Chirravuri Naga Lakshmi Jyothi	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/5/2026	Tadi Ammi Reddy vs Koppula Veerraju	27 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/26/2026	Karri Srinivasa Reddy vs Agaram Kannaiah	24 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/123/2021	Kornala Ganesh Kumar vs Elipe Aruna	24 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/5/2023	Konala Veni vs Padala Srinivasa Reddy	23 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/6/2026	Karri Bulli Reddy vs Godi Shankara Rao	23 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/5/2026	SHO Biccavolu PS vs Eli Musalayya	23 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/6/2021	Sub Inspector of Police, Rayavaram vs Boddu Ashok @ Aseervadam	23 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/150/2026	SHO P and E, Rangampeta station vs Surampudi Durga Rao	23 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/151/2026	SHO P and E, Rangampeta station vs Reddy Suresh	23 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/219/2021	Andhra Pradesh State, Rayavaram Police station vs Kesavarapu Nageswara Rao	23 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/467/2025	SHO Biccavolu PS vs Chukka Raju Babu	23 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/489/2021	Andhra Pradesh State resp by its SHO of Sub-Inspector of Police vs Boddu Ashok@ Aseervadam	23 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/539/2021	Andhra Pradesh State vs Temmalapudi Ramakrishna	23 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
MC/3/2025	Nuthika Kumari vs Nuthika Suresh	23 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/61/2014	Sathi Ushasri vs Sathi Somasekhar Reddy	22 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/160/2020	Taaluri Chinna vs Pilli Ramana	22 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/239/2021	Sathi Ramakoteswara Reddy vs Paluri Lakshmi Mounika	22 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/242/2020	Sub Inspector of Police, Anaparthi vs Sabbella Satyanarayana Reddy	22 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/330/2024	SHO Anaparthi PS vs Avala Chinna Rao	22 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/468/2025	SHO Biccavolu PS vs Potru veera Swamy	22 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/40/2026	Betha Srinivas vs Dasi Veerraju	21 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/61/2023	Nallamilli Venkata reddy vs Padala Srinivasa Redy	21 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/82/2023	Tetali Veerandra Reddy vs Padala Srinivas Reddy	21 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/122/2023	Tetali Adi Reddy vs Paedala Srinivasa Reddy	21 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/318/2025	Pugaku Vishwanadham vs Tekumudi Srinivas	21 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
MC/18/2022	Nulukurthi Lakshmi vs Nulukurthi Srinivas	21 Apr 2026	Order	—
PRC/2/2026	SHO Biccavolu PS vs Polinati Pothuraju	21 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/164/2022	Gudimetla Suresy Reddy vs Gudimetla Manga Varalakshmi	20 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC/245/2020	Sub Inspector of Police, Rayavaram vs Manda Satyalakshmi	20 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
MC/13/2025	Palathirtham Leelavathi vs Palathirtham Sivannarayana	20 Apr 2026	Order	—
PRC/12/2025	SHO Anaparthi PS vs Vennela Raju	20 Apr 2026	Order	—
PRC/15/2025	SHO Biccavolu PS vs Reddy Veera Venkata Satyanarayana alias Veerababu	20 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/8/2026	Karri Seetha vs Karri Parvathi	17 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/25/2026	Tadi Peddi Reddy vs Sakalabatthula Kanaka Mahalakshmi	17 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/195/2025	Thadi Srinivasa Reddy vs Vadisala Suribabu	17 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/293/2025	Sabbella Durga Eswara Reddy vs Chaduvula Srinu	17 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/221/2022	Tetali Veeerendra Reddy vs Padala Srinivasa Reddy	16 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/257/2025	Tadi Veera Venkata Ramachandra Reddy vs Thummarada Posibabu	16 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/482/2025	SHO Biccavolu PS vs Bangaru Nagesh	16 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/2002/2023	SHO Anaparthi PS vs Padala Siva Reddy alias Sai Siva Satyanarayana Reddy	16 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/2021/2023	SHO Anaparthi PS vs Tadi Dharma Reddy	16 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
MC/23/2022	Manda Bhavani vs Manda Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy	16 Apr 2026	Order	—
PRC/3/2026	SHO Rayavaram PS vs Relangi Nageswara rao	16 Apr 2026	Order	—
FDP/3/2025	Jalluri Suryanarayana Venkata Krishna vs Bangaru Vara Lakshmi	16 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/4/2026	Sathi Trinadha Reddy vs Mummidi Srinivasa Rao	15 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/47/2023	Dwarampudi Srinivasa Reddy vs Penugonda Radhika	15 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/23/2026	Satti Viajayalakshmi alias Pravathi vs Pagolu Jhansi	15 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/267/2025	Sathi Adi Reddy vs Ganta Ramana	15 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/117/2021	Karri Sundara Rama Reddy vs Surisetti Nageswara Rao	15 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/448/2025	SHO Anaparthi PS vs Thamarana Sivaji	15 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/461/2025	SHO Anaparthi PS vs Meka Gangaraju	15 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
PRC/21/2025	SHO Anaparthi PS vs Nallaimilli Mani Kanta Reddy	15 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/28/2023	Goluguri Srinivasa Reddy vs Kavadi Vimala	13 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/14/2022	Aripaka Babu Rao vs Vssouthern Railways	13 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/31/2025	Karri Satyanarayana Reddy vs Amsuri Srinu	13 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/299/2025	Mallidi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy vs Tummuri Prasada Reddy	13 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/68/2021	The State Rep by it Sub-Inspecor of police vs Katcha Bhaskara Rao	13 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/103/2020	Dwarampudi Bhaskara Reddy vs Karri Venkata Sudhakar Reddy	13 Apr 2026	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 3,146 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		31
Apr 2026		100
Mar 2026		872
Dec 2025		664
Nov 2025		80
Oct 2025		36
Aug 2025		44
Jul 2025		234
Jun 2025		43
May 2025		36
Apr 2025		75
Mar 2025		120

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Majji Vamsi Krishna handled?

Majji Vamsi Krishna has handled 3149 court orders since 2024 at Court of Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthy (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 112 orders per month.

What types of cases does Majji Vamsi Krishna hear?

Based on available records, Majji Vamsi Krishna primarily handles Criminal matters (Summary Trial Cases, Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Court of Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthy (Taluka).

Where is Majji Vamsi Krishna currently posted?

Majji Vamsi Krishna is posted as JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGEAnaparthy at Court of Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthy (Taluka), East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Majji Vamsi Krishna available online?

Yes. 15 judgments by Majji Vamsi Krishna are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Majji Vamsi Krishna dispose cases?

Majji Vamsi Krishna disposes approximately 112 cases per month, based on 3149 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthy (Taluka).

Since when is Majji Vamsi Krishna serving?

Majji Vamsi Krishna has been serving at Court of Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthy (Taluka) since 2024. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

STC 41%

CC 34%

OS 18%

EP 5%

MC 1%

PRC 1%

FDP 0%

DVC 0%

Posting History

Mar 2026 — Present

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGEAnaparthy · 1,003 orders
Oct 2025 — Dec 2025

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGEAnaparthy · 780 orders
Jan 2024 — Aug 2025

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGEAnaparthy · 1,366 orders

Outcomes on Record

Convicted 5

Acquitted 3

← View all judges at Court of Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthy (Taluka)