Ms. Niurpa Bhanj Deo

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Yellamanchili (Taluka) · Visakapatnam · Andhra Pradesh

Ms. Niurpa Bhanj Deo, PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Yellamanchili (Taluka), Visakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 34 court orders on record since 2021. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, A cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/175/2020 Compromised

MADAGALA SANYASAMMA vs MOGGA RAMANAMMA

06 May 2022

1 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.175/2020

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Ms. Nirupa Bhanj Deo, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili.

Friday, this the 06 th (Sixth) day of May, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT No.175/2020

Between:

Madagala Sanyasamma, W/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 50 yrs, housewife, R/o Dr.No.9-22, Kaspa Street, Kasimkota village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist. …Plaintif

And

Mogga Ramanamma, w/o Venkataramana, Hindu, aged about 58 yrs, R/o Dr.No.4-27, Padmanabharajupeta, Yellamanchili Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist.

...Defendant

This suit coming on 06.05.2022 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of S/Sri R.D.Prasad & V.Annapoornayya, Advocate for the plaintiff and remained defendant set ex parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The present suit is fled by the plaintiff against the defendant by praying this court to pass a preliminary decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.15,91,150/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and costs of the suit within the period fxed by the court and if the defendant fails then to order for sale of mortgaged property and also to grant liberty to proceed against the defendant personally in case if there is any short fall for realization of decretal amount.

02.The averments of the plaint are that the defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property of an extent of Ac.0.63 cents in S.No. 116-1C, of an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in S.No. 93-1B2, of an extent of Ac.0.27 cents in S.No. 93-2X totally to Ac.1.20 cents situated in

Padmanabjarajupeta village and Panchayat and that she got the plaint 2 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.175/2020 schedule properties from her ancestors. It is further submitted that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 21.04.2018 for the purpose of her family expenses and discharge of sundry debts and defendant executed a registered simple mortgage deed giving security of the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff on the same date agreeing to repay the debt together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of execution of the deed and compounded in every three months of non payment of interest at the rate of 18%. It is further submitted that the defendant agreed to pay the entire principal amount within two years from the date of mortgage. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant failed to pay either interest or principle to the plaintiff even after several demands made by the plaintiff and defendant have been postponing the same on some pretext or other. It is further submitted that the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 23.07.2020 to the defendant but she did not comply the demand or sent any reply. The plaintiff prayed this court to decree the suit.

03.In this suit though the summons was served on defendant, but she did not turn up to deny or contest the suit claim. The defendant remained absent without any representation on the date fxed for her appearance. Hence this court set defendant Ex-parte on 27.01.2020.

04.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined as P.W.1 and one Sanapathi Nageswararao as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3.

05.Heard counsel for the plaintiff.

06.Now point for determination are:

1.“Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit

amount from the defendant as prayed in the suit?”

2. To what relief ?

07. Point No.1:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.11,00,000 on 21.04.2018 for the purpose of her family expenses and for discharging her sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% and compounded in every three months of 3 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.175/2020 non payment of interest at the rate of 18% and that in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge debt.

08.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 fled her afdavit in lieu of her examination- in-chief, wherein she reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such chief afdavit of P.W.1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. In addition to that

P.W.1 exhibited Exs.A1 to A3. To prove that the transaction took place between the plaintiff and the defendant, P.W.1 exhibited Ex.A1 i.e, the

Mortgage deed and deposed that the defendant borrowed Rs.11,00,000/- on 21.04.2018 and executed Ex.A1 mortgage deed in her favour. On perusal of

Ex.A1 registered mortgage deed, it is seen that the same is executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.11,00,000/- for her family expenses and discharging sundry debts for an interest @ Rs.1.50 ps/- per one hundred rupees per month i.e. 18% per annum on 21.04.2018 and compounded in every three months of non payment of interest at the rate of 18%. Ex.A2 is the ofce copy of the legal notice dt.23.07.2020. A perusal of the legal notice shows that the plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the debt.

Ex.A3 is the original postal receipt. The evidence of P.W.1 to that effect has been unrebutted and intact. It seems that despite of oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant not made any attempts to repay the amount.

09.The attestor to Ex.A.1 Registered Mortgage deed i.e., Sanapathi

Nageswararao was examined as P.W.2 and he deposed in his chief- examination afdavit that on 21.04.2018, the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.11,00,000/- from the plaintiff to meet her family expenses and clearing sundry debts and in consideration thereof, the defendant executed Ex.A.1

Registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the same with 18% per annum from the date of execution of the deed compounded in every three months of non payment of interest at the rate of 18% as per the terms of the suit mortgage deed the principal and interest are fully paid within two years from the date of execution of the document. It is further submitted that the transaction took place in his presence and another attestor K.Durga Prasad and the said document was prepared by one Selamsetti Surya Prakasarao and that they acted as attestors and also as identifying witnesses at the time of registration of the mortgage deed.

4 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.175/2020

10.The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 to that effect has been unrebutted and intact. It seems that despite of oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant not made any attempts to repay the amount. The oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A3 proved the borrowing transaction and execution of registered mortgage deed by defendant. In this suit the defendant did not contest or deny the suit claim and therefore the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim. Accordingly, this point is answered.

11.Point No.2:

In the result, this suit is preliminary decreed with costs for Rs.

15,91,150/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakhs Ninety One Thousand One Hundred and Fifty only) with future interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree on the principal amount of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rs. Eleven Lakhs only).

Thereafter with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization on the same principal amount against the mortgaged property. In default of payment of the aforesaid amount, the plaintiff has liberty to apply for fnal decree for sale of mortgaged property.

If the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property are not sufcient for realization of the suit amount, personal decree be passed against the defendant for realization of balance suit amount if any. The redemption period is ten months from the date of judgment.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 06th day of May, 2022.

Sd/- Nirupa Bhanj Deo

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for:

For Plaintif:

P.W.1: Madagala Sanyasamma P.W.2: Sanapathi Nageswararao

For Defendant:

--None-- 5 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.175/2020

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of:

For Plaintif:

Ex.A1: Original Registered mortgage deed note dt.21.04.2018 Ex.A2: Ofce copy of Regd. Legal notice 23.07.2020 Ex.A3: Postal receipt dt.27.07.2020

For Defendant:

-- Nil--

Sd/- Nirupa Bhanj Deo

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili.

OS/62/2021

SEERAM APPALARAJU vs PANTHADI APPARAO AND ONE ANR.

06 May 2022

1 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.62/2021

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Ms. Nirupa Bhanj Deo, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili.

Friday, this the 06 th (Sixth) day of May, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT No.62/2021

Between:

Seeram Appalaraju, S/o Dhanaraju, Hindu, aged 32 yrs, Farmer, r/o Dr.No.2-70, Pentakota Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. …Plaintif

And

1. Panthadi Apparao, S/o Narasimha Murthy, Hindu, aged about 40 yrs, Fisher Man, R/o Dr.No.47-1-27/B, Etimoga Village, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

2. Panthadi Durga, W/o Apparao, Hindu, aged about 35 yrs, House wife, R/o Dr.No.47-1-27/B, Etimoga Village, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

...Defendants

This suit coming on 29.04.2022 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramakrishnarao, Advocate for the plaintif and remained defendants set ex parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is fled for recovery of Rs.8,25,000/- being the Principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 08.03.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.5,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and for costs.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintif on 08.03.2018 for the purpose of their family expenses and clearing their sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Thereafter, the plaintif made several demands but the defendants postponed the payment on some pretext or the other. Hence, the plaintif is constrained to 2 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.62/2021 fle the suit for recovery of money. The defendants are not entitled for the benefts under Debt Relief laws as they are not an agriculturist.

03.In this suit though the summons were served on defendants, but they unclaimed the same. Hence service is held sufcient. The defendants did not turn up to deny or contest the suit claim. The defendants remained absent without any representation on the date fxed for their appearance.

Hence this court set defendants Ex-parte on 14.12.2021.

04.In the plaintif side ex parte evidence, the plaintif was examined as P.W.1 and one Murikurthi Appalaraju, S/o Surya Rao as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.A.1.

05.Heard the learned counsel for plaintif and perused the record.

06. Now the point for determination is;

01. Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount along with costs and interest as prayed for ?

02. To what relief ?

07. Point No.1:

It is the contention of the plaintif that the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 08.03.2018 for the purpose of their family expenses and for discharging their sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% and in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif the defendants failed to discharge debt.

8.1.To substantiate the case of the plaintif, the plaintif examined himself as P.W.1 and P.W.2, the attestor. P.W.1 fled his afdavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such chief afdavit of P.W.1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. In addition to that P.W.1 exhibited Ex.A.1. To prove the transaction took place between the plaintif and the defendant, P.W.1 exhibited Ex.A1 i.e, the Promissory note and deposed that the defendants borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- on 08.03.2018 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour On perusal of Ex.A.1 promissory note, it is seen that the same is said to have executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintif for Rs.5,00,000/- for their family 3 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.62/2021 expenses and discharging sundry debts for an interest @ Rs.2.00 ps/- per one hundred rupees per month i.e. 24% per annum on 08.03.2018. The evidence of P.W.1 to that efect has been unrebutted and intact. It seems that despite of oral demands made by the plaintif, the defendants not made any attempts to repay the amount. The oral evidence of P.W.1 stood unchallenged.

8.2.The attestor to Ex.A.1 promissory note i.e., Murukurthi

Appalaraju was examined as P.W.2 and he deposed in his chief-examination afdavit that on 08.03.2018, the defendants jointly borrowed a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintif to meet their family expenses and sundry debts and in consideration thereof, the defendants executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of the plaintif on the same day agreeing to repay the same with 24% per annum in his presence and in the presence of second attestor and the scribe. He further deposed that the defendants acknowledged the consideration by cash on the same day at the time of execution of the promissory note. The oral evidence of P.W.2 stood unchallenged.

8.3.The oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.1 proved the borrowing transaction and execution of promissory note by defendants.

When execution is duly proved, this court is duty bound to invoke legal presumptions under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In this suit the defendants did not contest or deny the suit claim. So also they did not rebut the presumptions against them. Accordingly, this point is answered.

09. Point No.2:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif. Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay for Rs.8,25,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only) to the plaintif with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five

Lakhs only) from the date of fling of this suit till date of realization.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 06th day of May, 2022.

Sd/- Nirupa Bhanj Deo

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili.

4 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.62/2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for:

For Plaintif: For Defendants:

P.W.1: Seeram Appalaraju -Nil- P.W.2: Murukurthi Appalaraju

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of:

For Plaintif: For Defendants:

Ex.A1: Promissory note dt.08.03.2018- Nil-

Sd/- Nirupa Bhanj Deo

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili.

OS/3/2021

MARRI SWAMI NAIDU vs PAKKURTHI NARASIMHA MURTHY AND ONE ANR.

06 May 2022

1 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.03/2021

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Ms. Nirupa Bhanj Deo, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili.

Friday, this the 06 th day of May, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT No.03/2021

Between:

Marri Swami Naidu, s/o Late Achanna, Hindu, aged 58 yrs, Retd. Army employee, & cultivation, R/o Kothali village, Yellamanchili Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist. …Plaintif

And

1. Pakkurthi Narasimha Murthy, s/o Arjuna, Hindu, aged about 43 yrs, cultivation, R/o Kothali village, Yellamanchili Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist.

2. Pakkurthi Appala Raju, S/o Arjuna, Hindu, aged about 38 yrs, cultivation, R/o Kothali village, Yellamanchili Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist.

...Defendants

This suit coming on 29.04.2022 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.Govindarao, Advocate for the plaintif and remained defendants set ex parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is fled for recovery of Rs.3,27,520/- being the Principal and interest due on promissory notes dated 04.06.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.1,00,000/- & Rs.84,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and for costs.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendants are brothers and they jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- & Rs.84,000/- from the plaintif on 04.06.2017 for the purpose of their agricultural investment, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Thereafter, the plaintif made several demands but the defendants postponed the payment on some pretext or the other. Hence, the plaintif is constrained to fle the suit for recovery of money.

2 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.03/2021

03.In this suit though the summons was served on defendant and they made appearance through their learned advocate. But as the defendants failed to fle written statement within statutory period. Hence, this court set defendant exparte on 08.04.2022.

04.In the plaintif side ex parte evidence, the plaintif was examined as P.W.1 and he produced Ex.A.1 and A.2.

05.Heard the learned counsel for plaintif and perused the record.

06. Now the point for determination is;

01. Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount along with costs and interest as prayed for ?

02. To what relief ?

07. Point No.1:

It is the contention of the plaintif that the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- & Rs.84,000/- on 04.06.2017 for the purpose of their agricultural investment, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% and in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif the defendant failed to discharge debt.

08.To substantiate the case of the plaintif, the plaintif examined himself as P.W.1 and he fled his afdavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such chief afdavit of P.W.1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. In addition to that P.W.1 exhibited

Exs.A.1 and A.2. To prove the transaction took place between the plaintif and the defendant, P.W.1 exhibited Ex.A1 and Ex.A.2 i.e, the Promissory notes and deposed that the defendants borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.06.2017 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour and the defendants also borrowed Rs.84,000/- on 04.06.2017 and executed Ex.A2 promissory note in his favour. On perusal of Ex.A.1 & A.2 promissory notes, it is seen that the same is said to have executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintif for Rs.1,00,000/- & Rs.84,000/- for their agricultural investment for an interest @ Rs.2.00 ps/- per one hundred rupees per month i.e. 24% per annum on 04.06.2017. The evidence of P.W.1 to that efect has been unrebutted and intact. It seems that despite of oral demands made by the plaintif, the defendants did not make any attempts to repay the 3 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.03/2021 amount. The oral evidence of P.W.1 stood unchallenged. The oral evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 & Ex.A.2 proved the borrowing transaction and execution of promissory note by defendants. When execution is duly proved, this court is duty bound to invoke legal presumptions under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In this suit the defendants did not contest or deny the suit claim. So also he did not rebut the presumptions against them.

It is to be appreciated here that if the debt is borrowed by a small farmer for agricultural purposes then he/she is entitled for Debt relief law but in the present case though the debt is said to be borrowed by the defendants for agricultural investments, but as the defendants failed to appear and failed to prove that they are small farmers and are entitled for debt relief laws, hence the interest cannot be scaled down as per law. Accordingly, this point is answered.

09. Point No.2:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif. Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay for Rs.3,27,520/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred and Twenty only) to the plaintif with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,84,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Eighty Four Thousand only) from the date of fling of this suit till date of realization.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 06th day of May, 2022.

Sd/- Nirupa Bhanj Deo

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for:

For Plaintif: For Defendant:

P.W.1: Marri Swamy Naidu -Nil-

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of:

For Plaintif: For Defendants:

Ex.A1: Promissory note dt.04.06.2017- Nil- Ex.A2: Promissory note dt.04.06.2017

Sd/- Nirupa Bhanj Deo

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili.

OS/160/2021

KOLLI KRISHNA vs KOTA ANANDA RAO

06 May 2022

1 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.160/2021

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : YELLAMANCHILI

Present: Ms. Nirupa Bhanj Deo, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili.

Friday, this the 06 th (Sixth) day of May, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT No.160/2021

Between:

Kollu Krishna, s/o Satyam, Hindu, aged 62 yrs, Cultivation, r/o Edatam village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. …Plaintif

And

Kota Anandarao, s/o Chinna Nookaraju, Hindu, aged about 50 yrs, Business, R/o Edatam village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

...Defendant

This suit coming on 29.04.2022 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.B.P.Ramarao, Advocate for the plaintif and remained defendant set ex parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is fled for recovery of Rs.53,900/- being the Principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 06.08.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.35,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and for costs.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.35,000/- from the plaintif on 06.08.2018 for the purpose of his family expenses and for discharging his sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Thereafter, the plaintif made several demands but the defendant postponed the payment on some pretext or the other. Hence, the plaintif is constrained to fle the suit for recovery of money.

03.In this suit though the summons was served on defendant, but he did not turn up to deny or contest the suit claim. The defendant remained 2 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.160/2021 absent without any representation on the date fxed for his appearance.

Hence this court set defendant Ex-parte on 28.12.2021

04.In the plaintif side ex parte evidence, the plaintif was examined as P.W.1 and he produced Ex.A.1.

05.Heard the learned counsel for plaintif and perused the record.

06. Now the point for determination is;

01. Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount along with costs and interest as prayed for ?

02. To what relief ?

07. Point No.1:

It is the contention of the plaintif that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.35,000/- on 06.08.2018 for the purpose of his family expenses and for discharging his sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% and in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif the defendant failed to discharge debt.

Ex.A.1. To prove the transaction took place between the plaintif and the defendant, P.W.1 exhibited Ex.A.1 i.e, Promissory note and deposed that the defendant borrowed Rs.35,000/- and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in his favour. On perusal of Ex.A.1 promissory note, it is seen that the same is said to have executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.35,000/- for his family expenses and discharging his sundry debts for an interest @

Rs.1.50 ps /- per one hundred rupees per month i.e. 18% per annum on 06.08.2018. The evidence of P.W.1 to that efect has been unrebutted and intact. It seems that despite of oral demands made by the plaintif, the defendant did not make any attempts to repay the amount. The oral evidence of P.W.1 stood unchallenged. The oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 proved the borrowing transaction and execution of promissory note by defendant. When execution is duly proved, this court is duty bound to invoke legal presumptions under Section 118 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act. In this suit the defendant did not contest or deny the suit 3 Fair ORIGINAL SUIT No.160/2021 claim. So also he did not rebut the presumptions against him. Accordingly, this point is answered.

09. Point No.2:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif. Accordingly, the defendant is directed to pay Rs.53,900/- (Rs. Fifty

Three Thousand and Nine Hundred only) to the plaintif with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.35,000/- (Rs. Thirty

Five Thousand only) from the date of fling of this suit till date of realization.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 06th day of May, 2022.

Sd/- Nirupa Bhanj Deo

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for:

For Plaintif: For Defendant:

P.W.1: Kollu Krishna -Nil-

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of:

For Plaintif: For Defendant:

Ex.A1: Promissory note dt.06.08.2018- Nil-

Sd/- Nirupa Bhanj Deo

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili.

OS/232/2021

Nagam Vara Pooja vs Nagam Vasu Dorappa

06 May 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :YELLAMANCHILLI

Present: MS. Nirupa Bhanj Deo, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, (FAC) Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchilli

Friday, this the 06th day of May, 2022.

O.S.No.232/2021

Between:

Nagam Vara Pooja, W/o Venkata Sudarsana Gopalam, aged 29 years, Hindu, Housewife, resident of Padalavani Lakshmipuram Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

... Plaintif

And

1.Nagam Vasu Dorappa, S/o late Ramalingam, aged 51 years, Hindu, Cultivation, resident of Chamavaram Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District.

2.Nagam Venkanna Dora @ Bullibabu, S/o late Venkata Sudarsana Gopalam, aged 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, resident of Yamaha Show Room, Main Road, Markandarajupeta, Tuni, East Godavari Street.

... Defendants

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri J.V.B.S.R.Sastry, Advocate for the plaintif and Sri D.B.P.Rama Rao, Advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed for permanent injunction restraining them, their men, servants, their legal representatives and agents and from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties by the plaintifs and for costs of the suit.

Plaintif counsel present and filed memo stating that the matter is settled

before elders out of court and prayed to dismiss the suit.

In view of matter being settled out of court suit is dismissed.

In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 06th day of May, 2022.

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAKAPALLE.

(FAC) PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

YELLAMANCHILI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

II AJCJ/AKP (FAC) PJCJ/YLM.

Date of Presentation: 29.09.2021Date of filing: 23.10.2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :YELLAMANCHILLI

Present: MS. Nirupa Bhanj Deo, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, (FAC) Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchilli

Friday, this the 06th day of May, 2022.

O.S.No.232/2021

Between:

Nagam Vara Pooja, W/o Venkata Sudarsana Gopalam, aged 29 years, Hindu, Housewife, resident of Padalavani Lakshmipuram Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

... Plaintif

And

1.Nagam Vasu Dorappa, S/o late Ramalingam, aged 51 years, Hindu, Cultivation, resident of Chamavaram Village, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District.

2.Nagam Venkanna Dora @ Bullibabu, S/o late Venkata Sudarsana Gopalam, aged 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, resident of Yamaha Show Room, Main Road, Markandarajupeta, Tuni, East Godavari Street.

... Defendants

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is notionally valued at Rs.60,000/- and a court fee of Rs.2,626/- is paid U/Sec.26 (c) of Art-1 (b) and (c), Sch.1of APCF & SV Act.

DECREE

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as matter being settled out of court; and

2. that there be without costs.

A copy of plaint schedule is hereto attached.

Give under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 06th day of May, 2022.

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANAKAPALLE,

(FAC) PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

YELLAMANCHILI.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

No cost memo is filed on either side. II AJCJ/AKP (FAC) PJCJ/YLM.

Order Record 34 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/3/2021	MARRI SWAMI NAIDU vs PAKKURTHI NARASIMHA MURTHY AND ONE ANR.	06 May 2022	judgement	—
OS/62/2021	SEERAM APPALARAJU vs PANTHADI APPARAO AND ONE ANR.	06 May 2022	judgement	—
OS/160/2021	KOLLI KRISHNA vs KOTA ANANDA RAO	06 May 2022	judgement	—
OS/175/2020	MADAGALA SANYASAMMA vs MOGGA RAMANAMMA	06 May 2022	judgement	Compromised
OS/232/2021	Nagam Vara Pooja vs Nagam Vasu Dorappa	06 May 2022	judgement	—
OS/285/2021	Darsi Venkata Lakshmi vs Nammi Suryakantham	06 May 2022	judgement	—
OS/307/2021	Dhantu Praveen Kumar vs Bodapati Mahesh	06 May 2022	judgement	—
A.T.C./1/2020	THOTA CHELLAYYA NAIDU vs SMT.VEESAM LATHA ALIAS SANYASI NOOKA RATNAM	29 Apr 2022	order	—
OS/32/2020	PETLA ANIL KUMAR vs BATTULA RAMA KRISHNA	29 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/170/2021	ETHAMSETTY NOOKARAJU vs KILLADA RAMANA	29 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/171/2021	P.PASUPULATISHYAM vs POTUNURI SATYATIRUPATI RAO	29 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/172/2020	ALLU GOVINDU vs KODIBOINA GOVINDU	29 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/180/2021	Ethamsetty Yerrana vs Killada Ramana	29 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/185/2019	NAGIREDDY NAGESWARA RAO vs NELLUMUKKA VENKATA RAMANA	29 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/214/2020	SHAIK ABDULLA vs SHAIK SUBANBIBI AND 3 OTHERS	29 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/262/2021	Sikolu Chellayamma vs Nokku Kamala Jyothi	29 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/292/2021	Patsamatla Venkateswara Raju vs Vskare Appalaraju	29 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/5/2022	Dasari Veerraju vs Matha Gantala Rao	08 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/267/2019	SRI PRAGADA RAMANJANEYULU vs SRI DASARI BHASKARA RAO	08 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/283/2021	Pedapati Narasimhachari vs Manku Naidu	08 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/302/2021	Moturu Durgayya Naidu vs Janapareddi Lakshmi	08 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/12/2022	Canara Bank vs Ummidi Appalanarasamma	01 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/99/2021	CHEKKA SIMHACHALAM @ CHILAKAMMA vs MASA KASULU	01 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/185/2021	N.Surya prasad Reddy vs Bora Appalakonda	01 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/213/2021	Pukkalla Kondamma vs Chodipilli Madhava	01 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/314/2021	Prathipati Satyanarayana vs Chepala Ramana	01 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/317/2021	Prathipati Satyanarayana vs Yeripilli Mahesh	01 Apr 2022	judgement	—
OS/162/2021	TIRUMALA RAJU JAGANNADHARAJU vs PAPPALA SANJEEVI	25 Mar 2022	judgement	—
OS/100043/2018	Kachala Manikyala Rao vs Yellamanchili Apparao	25 Mar 2022	judgement	—
OS/100184/2018	Garikina Kondayya vs Orupula Jagga	25 Mar 2022	judgement	—
OS/100222/2015	Konde Satyanarayana vs Konde Nagaraju	25 Mar 2022	judgement	—
OS/77/2019	SRI CHADULURI SATTIBABU vs SRI KADIYALA RAMANA	24 Mar 2022	judgement	—
OS/100053/2016	Telugunta Jagannadham vs Telugunta Subbarao	14 Mar 2022	judgement	—
OS/273/2021	Nadimpalli Ravi Varma vs Geddam Subba Rangayya	12 Mar 2022	order	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2022		7
Apr 2022		20
Mar 2022		7

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Ms. Niurpa Bhanj Deo handled?

Ms. Niurpa Bhanj Deo has handled 34 court orders since 2021 at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Yellamanchili (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 2 orders per month.

What types of cases does Ms. Niurpa Bhanj Deo hear?

Based on available records, Ms. Niurpa Bhanj Deo primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits) at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Yellamanchili (Taluka).

Where is Ms. Niurpa Bhanj Deo currently posted?

Ms. Niurpa Bhanj Deo is posted as PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Yellamanchili (Taluka), Visakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Ms. Niurpa Bhanj Deo available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Ms. Niurpa Bhanj Deo are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Ms. Niurpa Bhanj Deo dispose cases?

Ms. Niurpa Bhanj Deo disposes approximately 2 cases per month, based on 34 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Yellamanchili (Taluka).

Since when is Ms. Niurpa Bhanj Deo serving?

Ms. Niurpa Bhanj Deo has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Yellamanchili (Taluka) since 2021.

Case Types

OS 97%

A 3%

Posting History

Feb 2022 — May 2022

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) · 34 orders
Jan 2021 — Jan 2021

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)
Jan 2021 — Jan 2021

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

Outcomes on Record

Compromised 1

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. P.Vijaya

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

717 orders

Smt. G. Spandana

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

258 orders

Sri. K.ramesh

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

38 orders

← View all judges at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Yellamanchili (Taluka)