Sri P.Ramana Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M.,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada · Krishna · Andhra Pradesh

Sri P.Ramana Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M.,, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, is posted at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh, India. 475 court orders on record since 2014. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, A, S cases.

475

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/1205/2016

KORADA SATYANARAYANA vs YENUGULA LAKSHMANA RAO

16 Mar 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri P. Ramana Reddy, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 16th day of March, 2017.

O.S. NO. 1205 / 2016

Between :

Korada Satyanarayana :: Plaintiff. And:

Yenugula Lakshmana Rao :: Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 14032017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri E. Rama Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.V. Ratnakar, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint in nutshell as follows : It is submitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property. The father of plaintiff by name Korada Ramu was occupied the plaint schedule property in the year 1951 and doing business under the name and style of Papa Pan shop. To that effect, the Corporation also recognized the possession of father of plaintiff and issued license to conduct business in the said property. The father of plaintiff has been paying the taxes and electricity charges to the concerned Authorities. After the demise of the father of plaintiff in the year 2011, the plaintiff has been continuing the business without any interruption from any body. The defendant had purchased a property adjacent to the plaint schedule property on the eastern side. Taking advantage of the innocence of the plaintiff, the defendant has been making efforts to encroach into the plaint schedule property on its eastern side with a view to grab the same. In the course of his attempts on 06112016 at about 1100 A.M, the defendant and his 2 henchmen came to the plaint schedule property used force unlawfully against the possession of plaintiff. By that time, due to timely intervention of elders in that locality, the matter was pacified. The defendant also openly proclaimed that he will come again and encroach into the plaint schedule property by hook or crook. The plaintiff also approached the police immediately after the incident and tried to present a complaint against the defendant, but they refused even to receive the complaint stating that the matter is civil in nature. The defendant has man and muscle power in the society. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file this suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant and their men from in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

3. The brief averments stemming out from the written statement of defendants as follows : The defendant denied all the averments mentioned in the plaint in verbatim. The defendant further submitted that he was the absolute owner of the property situated on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. There is a little bit of land admeasuring 20 to 25 feet site along with plaint schedule property including the wall of western side of plaint schedule property. The defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property apart from above said little bit of site merged with the road on western side of plaint schedule property. In the month of May, 2016, the authorities of Municipal Corporation informed to all owners of Sivalayam street and Moula Panza street to cooperate with them to remove the unauthorised encroachments by the side of roads. After demolition of encroached structures, the defendant had repaired the western side wall of plaint schedule property and constructed new small shops in the place of plaint schedule property. By that time, the plaintiff has requested the defendant to lease out the said newly constructed shops. But the defendant refused for the same. Then the plaintiff bore grudge against the defendant. Subsequently, on 08102016, the officials of Municipal Corporation demolished the newly constructed shops by the defendant. Thereafter, one Kommineni Srinivasa Rao running a small tea stall in the place of plaint schedule property from August, 2016 onwards. The plaint schedule property is not in existence on the date of filing this suit. The photographs filed 3 along with the written statement clearly discloses the same. There is no prima facie case, balance of convenience and the loss going to be sustained by the plaintiff for non granting of permanent injunction. Hence, the defendant requested the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the averments in the plaint and written statement the following issues were settled for trial :

i) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of plaint schedule property ?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed in the suit iii) To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, plaintiff got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and exhibited the documents Exs. A.1 to A.5. The defendant himself examined as D.w.1 and exhibited the documents Exs.B.1 to B.3.

6. Heard both sides.

7.While addressing the arguments, both the counsels reiterated their respective pleadings and urged the Hon'ble Court to pass necessary orders basing on the evidence and documents available on record.

8.ISSUES NOS.1 & 2 :

In order to prove the case, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and reiterated all the averments mentioned in the plaint in lieu of chief affidavit and same is treated as his chief examination. He also exhibited the documents Exs. A.1 to A.5. Ex.A.1 : License issued by the Municipal Corporation in favour of plaintiff as per section 521 of H.M.C. Act. Ex.A.2 : Tax receipts (8 in nos.). Ex.A.3 : Death certificate of father of plaintiff. Ex.A.4 : C.C of will executed by father of plaintiff in favour of his sons, dt. 19111990. Ex.A.5 : Photographs along with C.D. Showing the plaint schedule property. In order to substantiate his contention, the plaintiff also examined P.w.s 2 and 3 who are 3rd party to the proceedings. P.ws. 2 and 3 deposed in their evidence that the father of plaintiff has been doing business in the plaint schedule 4 property since 1951 and thereafter, the plaintiff continued the same. They further deposed that on 06112016, the defendant and their men came to the plaint schedule property and tried to occupy the same high handedly. While cross examination of D.W.1 nothing was elicited with regard to the existing of plaint schedule property as on the date of filing this suit and the alleged interference made by the defendant to occupy the plaint schedule property except some denials.

9. In order to prove the allegations in the written statement, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and reiterated all the averments mentioned in the written statement in lieu of chief affidavit and same is treated as his chief examination. He got exhibited the documents Ex.B.1 to B.3. Ex.B.1 : 24112016 : Two photos along with C.D in respect of plaint schedule property. Ex.B.2 : 08102016 : Eenadu News item published in News paper in respect of plaint schedule property. Ex.B.3 : Three photographs. While cross examination, P.w.1 stated that “ the schedule mentioned in Ex.A.4 will deed and the plaint schedule are not one and the same. He was not residing in the door number mentioned in the plaint. Except his oral testimony there is no document to show that the plaint schedule property belongs to his father. The particulars of Papa Pan shop was not mentioned in Ex.A.4 will deed. Ex.A.1 and A.2 did not contain the door number of plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property was belongs to the Municipal Corporation. Except his oral testimony there is no document to show that he has obtained electricity connection to the plaint schedule property. Either himself or his father never received any letter from the Municipal Corporation in respect of plaint schedule property since 1951 till date. The photographs filed under Ex.A.5 was taken in the year 2009. There is no document to show that the extent of plaint schedule property is 25 sq. feet. The structures appeared in Ex.B.1 photographs were constructed by the defendant in the place of plaint schedule property. At present the plaint schedule property was not in existence. The said property was removed by the Municipal Corporation. On 07102016, the authorities of Municipal Corporation demolished the half of the structures shown in Ex.B.1 photographs and same was also published in daily newspaper under Ex.B.2. He did not file any document to show that he approached the police and attempted to present a report against the defendant. One Kommuru 5

Srinivasa Rao has been running a temporary tea stall in the place of plaint schedule property. The Municipal Corporation removed the entire structures appeared in Ex.B.1. Photographs which clearly discloses the photographs filed under Ex.B.3.

10.While cross examination, P.w.2 stated that “ he came to know through P.w.1 that the defendant demolished the plaint schedule property resulting the present suit. We cannot say the exact date, year and month when the galata took place between P.w.1 and defendant”. While cross examination, P.w.3 stated that “after the demolition of plaint schedule property by the Corporation authorities, the plaintiff had approached this court by way of this suit. In the month of November, 2015, the galata ensured between P.W.1 and defendant near the plaint schedule property. He was also present at the time of said incident”.

11.On scrutiny of the entire evidence and material on record, the main case of the plaintiff is that the father of plaintiff was running a pan shop in the plaint schedule property since 1951 by paying necessary charges to the concerned authorities. After his demise, the plaintiff has been continuing the said business without any interruption from 3rd parties. The defendant had recently purchased the property on the western side of plaint schedule property and making hectic efforts to occupy the western side site along with the plaint schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file this suit. Whereas, the contention of defendant is that the entire encroachment on the eastern side of his property was removed by the Corporation people. Thereafter, he has constructed a two small shops in the place of plaint schedule property subsequently the said constructions were also removed by the Corporation. Now one 3rd party has been maintaining a small tea stall in the place of the plaint schedule property without raising any structures. As on the date of filing this suit, the plaint schedule property was not in existence as alleged by the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant requested the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suit.

12.According to the plaint averments itself the father of plaintiff occupied the plaint schedule property and running a pan shop 6 business in it. He was not claiming the absolute rights over the site where the plaint schedule property is situated. Where as the contention of defendant is that the site situated on the eastern side of his property including the plaint schedule property was belongs to him. The said site was merged in the Municipal Road. But he did not file any document to claim the site and plaint schedule property situated on the eastern side of his property. The defendant categorically admitted that immediately after the eastern boundary, there is a drainage channel. As per his admission, there is no site between the eastern boundary wall and the drainage channel. In the absence of any document, it cannot be said that the site where the plaint schedule property is situated belongs to the defendant.

The plaintiff categorically admitted that the plaint schedule property was constructed on the drainage channel. It clearly shows that the it was a unauthorised construction in the place of Municipal Corporation. After occupying the plaint schedule property, the authorities of Corporation had also issued license under Ex.A.1. The father of plaintiff had been paying the taxes till his death. The latest tax receipts are not filed into court. The photographs filed under Ex.A.5 also clearly discloses with regard to the presence of father of plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. The above said contention was not denied by the plaintiff during the course of evidence. Admittedly, Ex.A.5 photographs was taken in the year 2009. As could be seen from the tax receipts filed under Ex.A.2, all are issued prior to 2009. After scrutiny of Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.5, it can be presumed that the father of plaintiff had run a pan shop as contended by the plaintiff. Ex.A.1 license clearly discloses with regard to the sanction of license to the father of plaintiff. But basing on the said license, the father of plaintiff has no right to claim absolute rights over the plaint schedule property. As per Ex.A.1, he was only a licensee upto the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation. By ignoring the above said fact, the father of plaintiff had mentioned the existence of plaint schedule property in the will executed by him under Ex.A.4. In the absence of any proceedings from the Corporation there is no sanctity to the recital mentioned in Ex.A.4 will deed. The said recital would not create any right to the children of the father of the plaintiff after his death. The plaintiff has no right to claim any right over the plaint schedule 7 property under the guise of Ex.A.4 will deed. Admittedly, there is no tax receipt issued by the Municipal Corporation after 2009. All the documents filed by the plaintiff under Exs.A.1 to A.5, clearly discloses the previous possession of father of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property though it was denied by the defendant. But the said evidence is not sufficient to grant permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. In those circumstances, all the above said documents are not helpful to the case of plaintiff to grant permanent injunction. As such, no credence will be given to the recitals in the above said documents to grant permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

13.The plaintiff has to establish his possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing this suit. As per the contention of plaintiff, as on the date of filing this suit, he has been conducting Pan shop business in the plaint schedule property. During the course of his business, the defendant tried to interfere with his possession with the help of his henchmen which leads to filing of this suit. Whereas, the entire cross examination of P.w. 1 reveals contra to the averments mentioned in the plaint. The admissions made by the plaintiff itself taken away his entire case on wrong lines. The plaintiff categorically admitted that on 11062016, the authorities of Municipal Corporation had demolished the entire plaint schedule property which was situated on the drainage channel. He further admitted that after demolition of plaint schedule property, the defendant also constructed two small shops in the place of plaint schedule property. Subsequently, the said shops were also demolished by the Corporation people. It clearly shows that at present there were no constructions in the place of plaint schedule property. P.w.3 also admitted in his evidence that after demolition of structures in the plaint schedule property by the Corporation people, the plaintiff had filed this suit. Admittedly, the plaint was presented on 11112016. As per the admission of P.w.1, a plaint was presented five months after the demolition of plaint schedule property. All the witnesses examined by the plaintiff categorically admitted that as on the date of filing this suit, the plaint schedule property was not in existence. The photographs filed under Ex.B.1 to B.3 clearly emanates the demolished structures in the plaint schedule property. The said photographs were also confronted with the plaintiff during the course of cross 8 examination who admitted the entire structures in it. All the referred circumstances clearly goes to show as on the date of filing this suit, the plaint schedule property was not in existence as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also admitted that there is no piece of document with him to show the plaint schedule property was allotted to his father by the Municipal Corporation. After considering the entire cross examination of plaintiff, it clearly reveals that the plaintiff had suppressed some real facts before this court to obtain exparte injunction orders. This court should not entertain such kind of attitude of the parties which taken away the entire faith in the judiciary. In the aforementioned reasons, it can safely conclude that as on the date of filing this suit, the defendant was not in possession, as the plaint schedule property was not in existence by that date as per the evidence of the witnesses. Hence, the plantiff failed to establish his possession over the plaint schedule property which is one of the main ingredient of permanent injunction.

14.Coming to the balance of convenience, the site where the plaint schedule property is situated was not belongs to either of the parties to the suit. As per the admission of both the parties, the plaint schedule property constructed on a drainage channel and same was removed by the Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff has no authority to agitate his right over the plaint schedule property in the absence of any valid document in his favour. Hence, it can safely conclude that there is no balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff.

15.Coming to the irreparable loss going to be sustained, the main allegation of the plaintiff is that on 06112016, while he was present in the plaint schedule property the defendant and his henchmen came there and tried to disturb the possession. By that time, P.W.3 was also present and witnessed the incident. Whereas, P.w.3 stated in his evidence that the incident took place in December, 2015. As such, this court can assess the trust worthyness of evidence of P.w.3. Moreover, as per the finding of this court, as on the date of filing this suit, the plaint schedule property was not in existence as stated by the plaintiff. In those circumstances, there is no scope for happening of the above said incident near the plaint schedule property as stated by the plaintiff. Further, P.W.2 categorically deposed that after demolition of plaint schedule property by the defendant, the plaintiff had approached 9 this Hon'ble Court by way of this suit. There is no corroboration between the evidence of P.w.2 and P.W.3 with regard to the incident alleged to have happened near the plaint schedule property. As per evidence of P.w.2, he was not present at the time of above said incident. He came to know through P.w.1 with regard to the above said incident. After considering the entire evidence of P.w.s 2 and 3, they were brought by P.w.1 for the purpose of supporting his contention. The contention of plaintiff itself is negatived by his own evidence. In those circumstances, the evidence of P.W.s. 2 and 3 is not a trust worthy evidence and I am not believe the same. If anything was happened near the plaint schedule property certainly it will noticed by the neighbours in that locality. Admittedly, P.w.s 2 and 3 are not neighbours to the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff did not choose to examine any of the neighbouring owner to know about the alleged incident. Moreover, the copy of report alleged to have present

before the police did not file before the court. It clearly shows that

nothing was happened near the plaint schedule property as contended by the plaintiff. The said incident was created by the plaintiff for the purpose of filing this suit but none else. All the above referred circumstances clearly goes to show that no incident had taken place near the plaint schedule property as alleged by the plaintiff. If injunction is not granted, no loss will be sustained to the plaintiff as the plaint schedule property was not belongs to him. Hence, the plaintiff failed to fulfill the three main ingredients of permanent injunction by placing cogent and convincing material before this court. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed in the suit. Accordingly, issues 1 and 2 are answered.

16.ISSUE NO.3 :

In view of the answer to issues 1 and 2, this suit is liable to be dismissed. IN THE RESULT, this suit is dismissed with costs. Typed to my dictation, directly by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16th day of March, 2017.

Sd/- P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1/Korada Satyanarayana D.W.1/Yenugula Lakshmana Rao

PW.2/ Mandalapu Surya Prakash

PW.3/ Jasti Madhava Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : License issued by the Municipal Corporation in favour of plaintiff as per section 521 of H.M.C. Act.

Ex.A.2 : Tax receipts (8 in nos.).

Ex.A.3 : Death certificate of father of plaintiff.

Ex.A.4 : C.C of will executed by plaintiff's father in favour of his sons,

dt. 19111990.

Ex.A.5 : Photographs along with C.D showing the plaint schedule property.

For Defendant:

Ex.B.1 : 24112016 : Two photos along with C.D in respect of plaint schedule property.

Ex.B.2 : 08102016 : Eenadu News item published in News paper in respect of plaint schedule property.

Ex.B.3 : Three photographs. Sd/ P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

OS/1103/2016

MOHAMMAD RIYAZ and ANOTHER vs BODDAPATI TIRUMALA NAGENDRA BABU and ANOTHER

24 Mar 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri P. Ramana Reddy, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 24th day of March, 2017.

O.S. NO. 1103 / 2016

Between :

1. Mohamad Riyaj

2. Md. Rajiya :: Plaintiffs. And:

1. Bodapati Tirumala Nagendra Babu

2. Bodapati Sunitha :: Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 23-03-2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Y. Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri T.R.K.Srinivas, Advocate for the defendants and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for declaration to declare that the adoption deed bearing No.120/2011, dt. 20.08.2011 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and their daughter and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the custody of their daughter and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint in nutshell as follows : It is submitted that the plaintiffs and defendants are husband and wife respectively. The 2nd defendant is the sister of 2nd plaintiff.

The plaintiffs gave birth to three female children but the defendants have no issues for a long time. As such, the plaintiffs gave their 3rd daughter in adoption to the defendants by executing a adoption deed,dt. 20.08.2011. While the matter stood thus, some disputes arose between the defendants with regard to their family life and the 1st defendant was also involved in criminal cases. The plaintiffs suspect the welfare of adopted child in the custody of defendants. Then the plaintiffs admitted the adoptive child in School at Vijayawada and she has been studying 5th class in Sarada Rama

Krishna Vidyalayam. By virtue of the execution of adoption deed the 2 defendants wants to file criminal cases against the plaintiffs in order to harass them. The matter was also referred to the Pre-litigation Cell at Vijayawada. In the said counselling the adoptive child declined to go with the defendants. By that time, the defendants openly proclaimed that they will take away the adoptive child forcibly from the custody of plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs are apprehending danger in the hands of defendants. The plaintiffs also got issued legal notice on 11-06-2016 to the defendants to cancel the adoption deed. But the defendants refused to receive the said notice by knowing the contents in it. Hence, the plaintiffs constrained to file this suit seeking the declaration of cancellation of adoption deed, dt. 20-08-2011 and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the custody of adoptive child.

3. The brief averments stemming out from the written statement of defendants as follows : The defendants denied all the averments mentioned in the plaint except the relationship between the parties and the execution of adoption deed. The defendants further submitted that the plaintiffs willfully and heartfully gave adoption of their daughter to them. After the adoption, both the defendants have been looking after the affairs of adoptive child with utmost love and affection. There are no matrimonial disputes between the defendants as alleged by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and defendants are met recently in a family function. In the said function, the plaintiffs have requested the defendants to send the child along with them for two days. Basing on the request of the plaintiffs, on humanitarian grounds, the defendants send the adoptive child with them. But thereafter, they did not choose to send back the child to their custody. For that the defendants lodged a complaint before S.H.O, S.N.Puram, Vijayawada. But the police failed to take any action in view of the influence made by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also failed to attend before P.L.C Authorities at Nellore. Due to the non presence of adoptive child, both the defendants gone to deep depression and suffered physically and mentally. There is no iota of truth in the contention of plaintiffs. They have hatched up a plan to take away the adoptive child from the custody of defendants 3 permanently. As such, the present suit was brought into existence with all false and frivolous allegations. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit. Hence, the defendants requested the

Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the averments in the plaint and written statement the following issues were settled for trial :

i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of adoption deed, dt. 20-08-2011 ? ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for consequential

permanent injunction preventing the defendants 1 and 2

from interfering with the custody of their child ? iii) To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, plaintiffs got examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and exhibited the documents Exs. A.1 to A.5. On behalf of defendants, 1st defendant himself examined as D.w.1 and no documents were marked.

6. Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

7.The counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the plaintiffs have been apprehending danger to the welfare of the adoptive child in the custody of defendants due to their matrimonial disputes. He further argued that the 1st defendant was also involved in criminal cases.

Basing on the execution of adoption deed, the defendants tried to threaten the plaintiffs by initiating several criminal complaints. The adoptive child also declined to go with the defendants in a counseling held before the P.L.C authorities. By virtue of the adoption deed, the defendants have been threatening and foisting false cases against the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs wants to cancel the adoption deed executed between them.

8.Though the defendants personally present before the court, but failed to bring their counsel to address their part of arguments. Hence, this court treated no arguments on behalf of the defendants.

9.ISSUE NO.1 : In order to prove the case, the 1st plaintiff himself examined as

P.W.1 and reiterated all the averments mentioned in the plaint in lieu of chief affidavit and same is treated as his chief examination. He also exhibited the documents Exs. A.1 to A.5. Ex.A.1 : 20-08-2011 : C.C of Adoption deed. Ex.A.2 : 11-06-2016 : Office copy of legal notice got issued by 1st plaintiff through his counsel to the defendants. Ex. A.3 : 28-07-2011 :Original study certificate of minor child by name Md. Sadika. Ex.A.4 : 28-06-2016 : Returned postal cover with an endorsement not claimed. Ex.A.5 : 18-11-2015 : Copy of F.I.R in Cr.No. 409/ 2015 in Nellore, V Town P.S. In order to substantiate their contention, the plaintiffs also examined P.w.s 2 to

4. P.W.2 who is no other than the husband of P.W.1 deposed on par with the evidence of P.w.1 in all respects. P.w.3 who is no other than the mother of P.W.2 and 2nd defendant deposed with regard to the matrimonial disputes between the defendants. P.W.4 who is victim girl deposed with regard to the quarreling of defendants each other on every day. While cross examination of D.W.1 nothing was elicited with regard to the matrimonial disputes between the defendants and criminal cases pending against the 1st defendant except some denials.

10. In order to prove the allegations in the written statement, the 1st defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and reiterated all the averments mentioned in the written statement in lieu of chief affidavit and same is treated as his chief examination. He also exhibited the document Ex.B.1. Ex.B.1 is the letter written by P.w.4 on some white paper, dt. 31-01-2016. While cross examination P.w.1 stated that “ the defendants have changed the name of adoptive child as SATWIKA after adoption. In the year 2009 itself, the name of his daughter was enrolled in the records of defendants. The defendants also opened a showroom in the year 2009 in the name and style of “SATWIKA CUSTOMS SHOW ROOM”. The defendants looked after his child very well while her stay with them. He did not file any documentary evidence to show the matrimonial disputes 5 between the defendants. Except filing of Ex.A.5, he did not know the particulars of the said case”. While cross examination P.w.2 stated that “on their own accord her 3rd daughter was adopted to the defendants. By that time, the defendants did not make any compulsion against them to give their daughter on adoption. The defendants have been performed the birthdays of the daughter in the presence of their family members. Except, Ex.A.5, there is no other document to show that the 1st defendant developed illicit intimacy with another woman and thereafter she committed suicide. Except the 2nd defendant all the family members of 1st defendant looked after her child very well during her stay with them”. While cross examination P.w.3 stated that “ she was not performed the marriages of her two daughters. She has been residing at Vijayawada since her childhood”. While cross examination P.w.4 stated that “During her stay with defendants, she used to call them as Mummy and Daddy. The defendants looked after her very well while her stay with them. The defendants requested her on several occasions after the plaintiffs taken her to Vijayawada. She did not know whether the defendants made an application before the

Principal to allow them to talk with her. She has got love and

affection towards defendants. The letter shown to her under Ex.B.1 written by her”.

11.On scrutiny of the entire evidence and material on record, the main case of the plaintiffs is that due to the matrimonial disputes between the defendants, they have apprehending danger to the life of adoptive child in their custody. As such, they taken away P.W.4 from the custody of defendants. Under the guise of adoption deed, the defendants have been foisting criminal cases against the plaintiff one after another in order to harass them. For that reason, the plaintiff wants to cancel the adoption deed executed between the plaintiffs and defendants, resulting the present suit. Whereas, the case of the defendants is that due to some financial transactions between them, the plaintiffs have taken away P.w.4 from their custody. P.w.4 categorically stated that defendants have looked after her very well during her stay with them. The plaintiffs reluctant to send back P.w.4 to the custody of defendants by deviating the terms of adoption deed. Hence, there is no truth in the contention of 6 plaintiff with regard to the welfare of the adoptive child. Hence, the defendants requested to dismiss the suit.

12.Before meddling with the facts and circumstances of this case, it is pertinent to mention the important provisions in the “THE HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956”. upon which, the entire relief sought for by the plaintiffs are rests.

6. REQUISITES OF A VALID ADOPTION : - No adoption shall be valid unless iii)the person adopting has the capacity, and also the right, to take in adoption ; iv)the person giving in adoption has the capacity to do so ;

v) the person adopted is capable of being taken in adoption ; and vi)the adoption is made in compliance with the other conditions.

9. PERSONS CAPABLE OF GIVING IN ADOPTIONS : No person except the father or mother or the guardian of a child shall have the capacity to give the child in adoption.

10. PERSONS WHO MAY BE ADOPTED : No persons shall be capable of being taken in adoption unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely I)he or she is a Hindu. II)He or she has not already been adopted. III) He or she has not been married unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parents which permits persons who are married being taken in adoption. IV) He or she has not completed the age of fifteen years, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of fifteen years being taken in adoption.

15. VALID ADOPTION IS NOT BE CANCELLED : No adoption which has been validly made can be cancelled by the adoptive father or any other person, nor can be adopted child renounce his or her status as such and return to the family of his or her birth.

13.The execution of a deed is not mandatory evidencing the adoption of the parties. But in this case both the parties have executed a adoption deed and same was registered. They are not disputing the adoption deed executed between them. It is not the case of plaintiff that Ex.A.1 adoption deed was hit by the provisions of Act and the parties to it are not competent to execute the said document. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the execution of Ex.A.1 adoption deed. But the plaintiffs wants to cancel the said deed alleging that there were some matrimonial disputes between the defendants and the 1st defendant was also 7 involved in criminal cases. In those circumstances, there is every possibility of harassment to the adoptive child in the custody of defendants. Keeping the said notion in their mind, the plaintiffs wants to cancel the adoption deed executed under Ex.A.1. The only question before the court is mere allegation on the defendants, suffice to cancel the adoption deed. There is no specific device in the act to cancel the adoption deed unilaterally by any of the parties. The act did not provide any such facility to act detrimental to the interest of minor child by any of the parties. Even though the minor child gave consent to cancel the adoption deed either of the parties have no authority to cancel the same. The said cancellation is only possible after attaining the majority by the adoptive child and upon the consent given by her. In the absence of any consent from the adoptive child, there is no authority for any of the party to cancel the adoption deed. When such is the case, how the relief sought for by the plaintiffs is maintainable before this court. There is no locus standii either to the natural or adoptive parents to initiate any proceedings against the interest of minor child. The proceedings initiated by the plaintiffs are against the provisions of the existing act. Basing on the apprehensions, the plaintiffs want to cancel the adoption deed executed between the parties. The said ground is not sufficient to cancel the adoption deed as sought for by them.

14.According to the averments in the plaint,the plaintiffs are apprehending danger to the safety of their child in view of the misunderstanding between the defendants. But there is no piece of evidence before the court to establish the matrimonial disputes between the parties. Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 categorically admitted that they did not produce any evidence showing the matrimonial disputes between the defendants. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that there were some disputes between the defendants and the said disputes ruin the future of adoptive child. Except the apprehension of plaintiff, there is no authoritative evidence before the court to believe the contention of plaintiffs. Mere apprehension did not create any right to the plaintiffs to seek any relief against the defendants. Further,mere filing of FIR would not tag any criminal nature to any body unless and until it was finally heard and decided. It is not the case of plaintiffs that the defendants have ill treated and harassed 8

P.w.4 during her stay with them. While cross examination, P.w.s 1 and 2 categorically deposed that the defendants treated P.w.4 with utmost love and affection. The defendants also changed the original name of P.w.4 in the entire records. They also opened a business in the name of P.w.4. The above said admissions clearly goes to show that the defendants have been looking after the affairs of P.w.4 without any deviation to the adoption deed. There is no iota of evidence before the court that the defendants are ill treated P.w.4 while she was in their custody to believe the contention of plaintiffs. As per the admission of P.w.3, she never resided in the house of defendants to speak about the matrimonial disputes between the defendants. As such, this court is not believe the evidence of P.w.3. The entire cross examination of P.w.4 exhibits the love and affection showed by the defendants towards adoptive child. She categorically stated that the defendants never harassed and ill treated at any point of time while her stay with them. The admission of P.w.4 itself sufficient to through away the entire allegation of plaintiffs against the defendants. The letter executed by P.w.4 under Ex.B.1 clearly shows her affection towards the defendants. All the above referred circumstances, clearly emanates that there is some other strong reason behind the minds of plaintiffs to withdraw the P.w.4 from the custody of the defendants.

15.During the course of cross examination, P.w.1 categorically admitted with regard to the financial transactions between them. He further deposed that both plaintiffs and defendants mortgaged the jewellery of each other and subsequently released them. At present there were no financial transactions between them. It clearly shows that at the time of exchanging the jewellery between the parties, some disputes might be arose between them. Due to that reason, the plaintiffs might have with drawn the custody of P.W.4 from the defendants. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are not financially sound to look after the affairs of three female children. Both P.w.s 1 and 2 categorically admitted that with their own accord, P.w.4 was given in adoption to the defendants. In those circumstances, there is no right for the plaintiffs to go beyond the terms of Ex.A.1 adoption deed.

16.The other strong objection of plaintiffs is that P.w.4 reluctant to go with the defendants in the presence of P.L.C authorities and C.I of police. The above said contention is quite contra to the cross examination of P.w.4. While cross examination of P.W.4, nothing was spoken against the defendants and their love and affection. There is every possibility to tutor P.w.4 before producing her in the presence of P.L.C authorities and C.I of police by the natural parents. At present, P.w.4 has been living with the plaintiffs. The impact of plaintiffs are very much on the adoptive child. In the above circumstances, it can be presumed that there is every possibility for the plaintiffs to influence P.w.4 before producing her in the presence of P.L.C authorities. As such, the intention of P.W.4 before the above said authorities is not at all considerable in view of the preponderance of circumstances around her. As such, the allegation of plaintiffs in this regard is tenable and liable to be rejected. Viewed from any angle, there is no cause of action for plaintiff to file this suit against the defendants. In my considered view, this suit itself is not maintainable which is filed against the provisions as contemplated in “THE HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956”. Accordingly, issue no.1 is answered.

17.ISSUE NO. 2 : The relief of permanent injunction is consequential to the 1st relief sought for by the plaintiffs. The declaration relief sought for by the plaintiffs went against them. As such, the plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction as prayed in the suit. Accordingly, issue no.2 is answered.

18.ISSUE NO.3 : In view of the answer to issues 1 and 2, this suit is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of March, 2017.

Sd/- P. Ramana reddy,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1/Mohammad RiyajD.W.1/ Bodapati Tirumala Nagendra Babu

PW.2/Md. Rajiya

PW.3/Malakapalli Durga

PW.4/Md. Sadika

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : 20-08-2011 : C.C of Adoption deed.

Ex.A.2 : 11-06-2016 : Office copy of legal notice got issued by 1st plaintiff through his counsel to the defendants.

Ex. A.3 : 28-07-2011 :Original study certificate of minor child by name Md. Sadika.

Ex.A.4 : 28-06-2016 : Returned postal cover with an endorsement not claimed.

Ex.A.5 : 18-11-2015 : Copy of F.I.R in Cr.No. 409/ 2015 in Nellore, VTown P.S.

For Defendant:

Ex.B.1 : 31-01-2016 : Letter written by P.W.4 on some white paper.

Sd/-P. Ramana Reddy,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

OS/1191/2016

CH.KISHORE vs Y.V.S.S.SAI KUMAR

22 Mar 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri P. Ramana Reddy, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of March, 2017.

O.S. NO. 1191 / 2016.

Between :

Ch. Kishore :: Plaintiff.

And:

Y.V.S.S. Sai Kumar :: Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 20032017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Balaji, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri Nuvvula Ram Babu, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for eviction of the defendant and for delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property and for future damages of Rs.98,600/ for unauthorised use and occupation of it and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint in nutshell as follows : It is submitted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property which is fully described in the plaint schedule. The defendant took the plaint schedule property on lease for residential purpose in the month of August, 2014 on a monthly rent of Rs.5,800/. The defendant is also agreed to pay the property tax to the plaint schedule property and to deduct the same in the monthly rents. The defendant also agreed to pay the electricity and water consumption charges separately. Further, the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the house for the purpose of personal occupation of his daughter who about to visit India from U.S.A. But the defendant failed to honour the request of plaintiff and filed a suit vide

O.S. No. 186 / 2015 on the file of this court for permanent injunction

with all false and untenable allegations. The defendant has been 2 continuing in the premises unauthorisedly without consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 13032015 terminating the tenancy of defendant over the plaint schedule property by giving 15 days time. He also claimed the damages @ Rs.98,600/ in case the defendant failed to vacate the premises as per the above said notice. The defendant received the said notice and issued reply with all false and frivolous allegations without honouring the request of plaintiff in the quit notice. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit.

3. The brief averments stemming out from the written statement of as follows : The defendant denied all the averments in the plaint in verbatim except the relationship and the quantum of existing rent. He further submitted that the defendant has been paying the rents regularly by depositing the same in the bank account of his daughter as per his request. The plaintiff never requested him to vacate the plaint schedule property for the personal occupation of his daughter who is in U.S.A. He further submitted that in the months of January & February, 2015, the plaintiff has been demanding to enhance the rent from Rs.5,800/ to Rs. 8,000/. But he expressed his inability to pay such huge amount and remained him about the talks held at the time of inception of lease. When the plaintiff tried to evict him forcibly from the plaint schedule property without following proper procedure he had filed a suit vide O.S. No. 186 / 2015 and obtained injunction in order to protect him in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has no right to terminate his tenancy as he was regular in payment of rents. Further, after terminating the tenancy of defendants in the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff has been receiving the rents regularly. Hence, the contents of quit notice was waived by the plaintiff himself. Hence, the said notice is not binding on the defendant. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit. The plaintiff has no right to claim damages against the defendant. Hence, he requested the

Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the averments in the plaint and written statement the following issues were settled for trial :

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendant from the plaint schedule property ?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages as claimed in the suit ?

iii) To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and exhibited the documents Exs.A.1 and A.2. The defendant himself examined as D.w.1 and exhibited the documents Exs. B.1 and B.2.

6. Heard the counsel for plaintiff. There is no representation for defendant. Hence, treated no arguments on his behalf.

7.The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff followed the mandatory provisions under section 106 of T.P. Act under Ex.A.1 and same was served on the defendant. The defendant has no other option to go beyond the terms of Ex.A.1 quit notice. The defendant is also liable to pay the damages as he was unauthorizedly residing in the plaint schedule property against the will of the plaintiff, after the expiry of stipulated time fixed in Ex.A.1 quit notice. The reply notice got issued by the plaintiff is replica of the allegation mentioned in the written statement and those are not helpful to the case of defendant. As such, no reliance can be placed on the said reply notice. Further, the defendant filed a suit against the plaintiff with all false allegations and obtained injunction to stay further more period in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff also got issued reminder notice to the defendant after his daughter came from U.S.A requesting the defendant to honour the terms of quit notice, but he did not vacate the premises and got issued reply to the said notice with all false and frivolous allegations. The issuance of 2nd notice by the plaintiff is not fatal to his case as pointed out by the defendant. The plaintiff never demanded the defendant to enhance the rent as contended by him in his written statement. The plaintiff did not want to continue the defendant in the plaint schedule property as a tenant as he required the same for the personal occupation of his daughter. Hence, he requested the Hon'ble Court to pass a decree in favour of plaintiff.

8.ISSUE NO.1 :

In order to prove his case, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and reiterated all the averments mentioned in the plaint in lieu of chief affidavit. He also exhibited the documents Ex. A.1 and A.2. Ex.A.1 : 13032015 : Quit notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A.2 : 04052015 : Reply notice issued by the defendant to Ex.A.1. While cross examination, D.W.1 stated that “ he had filed a suit against the plaintiff not to evict him forcibly from the plaint schedule property. Even till today, the plaintiff has been receiving the rents @ Rs. 5,800/ per month. The plaintiff never refused to receive the admitted rents demanding him to pay the enhanced rent”.

9. In order to prove the allegations in the written statement, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and reiterated all the averments mentioned in the written statement in lieu of chief affidavit. He also exhibited the documents Exs. B.1 & B.2. Ex.B.1 : 29062015 : Notice issued by the plaintiff through his counsel. Ex.B.2 : 14072015 : Reply notice issued by the defendant to Ex.B.1. While cross examination of P.W.1 nothing was elicited to establish the allegations mentioned in the written statement with regard to the enhancement of rent and the alleged force used by the plaintiff to vacate the defendant from the plaint schedule property except some denials.

10. On scrutiny of the entire evidence and documents on record, it reveals that the main case of the plaintiff is that the defendant failed to obey the quit notice got issued by the plaintiff. Due to the attitude of defendant, the plaintiff did not want to continue him as a tenant in the plaint schedule property. The defendant also filed a suit against the plaintiff for permanent injunction with all false and frivolous allegations. The plaint schedule property was required for the personal occupation of his daughter. Hence, the present suit was brought into existence.

11. Whereas, the contention of defendant is that Ex.A.1 quit notice is not valid as the plaintiff accepted the rents after issuing the same. The plaintiff never informed him with regard to the necessity of the plaint schedule property at any point of time. The plaint schedule property is not required for the personal occupation of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff also issued another notice after the quit notice served on the defendant. Hence, the presentation of suit basing on the 1st notice is not valid under law. Hence, he requested the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suit.

12. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the jural relationship and the quantum of existing rent to the plaint schedule property between the parties. The plaintiff wants to evict the defendant on the ground of personal occupation of his daughter. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the payment of existing rent. The plaintiff categorically admitted that till today, there is no arrear of rent from the end of defendant. Hence, it clearly understood that the defendant is regular in payment of rent to the plaint schedule property as agreed. As per the contention of plaintiff, he had requested the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property as it required for the personal occupation of his daughter who was residing at U.S.A. But the defendant failed to Honour the request of plaintiff and filed a suit vide O.S. No. 186 of 2015 for permanent injunction with all false and frivolous allegations. The plaintiff never threatened the defendant as contended by him in the above said suit. In the absence of plaintiff, this court granted exparte injunction orders in favour of defendant. As the plaintiff has no inclination to evict the defendant forcibly from the plaint schedule property, he did not choose to contest the above said proceedings. After knowing the attitude of defendant, the defendant did not want to continue his tenancy in the plaint schedule property. As such, he got issued a quit notice under Ex.A.1 by terminating the tenancy of defendant over the plaint schedule property. On seeing the attitude of defendant the plaintiff had got issued a quit notice under Ex. A.1 to evict him lawfully from the plaint schedule property. All the referred circumstances clearly goes to show that the defendant is not obey the contents of quit notice and forced the plaintiff to approach this Hon'ble Court by way of this suit. Now the court has to see whether the quit notice got issued by the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of T.P. Act or not.

13. Coming to the quit notice, got issued by the plaintiff under Ex.A.1, there is no dispute from the defendant with regard to its service on him. I have gone through the quit notice issued by the plaintiff 6 under Ex.A.1. The said notice fulfilled the two mandatory provisions of section 106 of T.P Act. The said notice was received by the defendant. As the plaintiff fulfilled the two main ingredients of U/s. 106 of T.P Act and the said notice was binding on the defendant. Even after receipt of said notice, the defendant reluctant to vacate the plaint schedule property as per the request of the plaintiff and he was continued in the plaint schedule property. He was also got issued reply notice by denying the averments mentioned in the quit notice. As such, the defendant is termed as tenant by holding over. While cross examination, the counsel for the defendant emphasized with regard to the maintainability of Ex.A.1, quit notice. He averred that the said notice was not valid and binding on the defendant in lieu of the 2nd notice got issued by him under Ex.B.1. I have gone through the contents of Ex.B.1 which was got issued by the plaintiff after service of Ex.A.1 quit notice on the defendant. As could be seen from the averments mentioned in it, it was issued by the plaintiff reminding the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property as his daughter arrived to India at about 2 months back. There is no specific device under section 106 of T.P Act nullfying the act of plaintiff with regard to the issuance of 2nd notice. The plaintiff has followed the requisites of u/s. 106 of T.P Act and afforded 15 days time to the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property. At the same time, there is no stipulated time for the plaintiff to file a suit against the defendant. There is no specific restriction in section 106 with regard to the issuance of 2nd notice as pointed out by the defendant. As such, the objection raised by the defendant counsel with regard to the issuance of 2nd notice is not at all fatal to the case of plaintiff. Basing on the 1st notice only, the plaintiff filed this suit seeking the eviction of defendant from the plaint schedule property. As such, the objection of defendant is not tenable and liable to be rejected.

14.So far as, accepting of rents after serving of quit notice on the defendant is concerned, the plaintiff has been receiving the rents without prejudice to his contention in this suit. Moreover, the rents were not being directly paid to the plaintiff. They were deposited in the account of daughter of the plaintiff. The plaintiff never issued any intimation to the bank not to honour the deposit of rent by the defendant. It clearly shows the bonafides of the plaintiff towards the 7 defendant. At the same time the plaintiff never issued any notice calling upon the defendant to enhance the existing rent. As per his contention, the plaint schedule property was required for his personal occupation. Being the land lord, he is at liberty to evict the defendant by following due procedure. As per the contention of defendant, no untoward incident was taken place near the plaint schedule property after granting permanent injunction by this Hon'ble court. It clearly shows that the plaintiff has no intention to vacate the defendant forcibly from the plaint schedule property. The defendant has no authority to stay in the plaint schedule property against the will of plaintiff. As per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff did not want to continue the defendant in the plaint schedule property as a tenant. In those circumstances, the defendant is liable to vacate the plaint schedule property and handed over its vacant possession to the plaintiff.

15.The core contention of defendant is that the plaintiff has been demanding him to enhance the rent from Rs.5,800/ to Rs.8,000/. But he expressed his inability to pay such huge amount. But there is no piece of evidence before the court to believe the contention of plaintiff. As per the contention of defendant he has been depositing the rents in the bank account of daughter of plaintiff from the beginning. He has no occasion even to see the face of plaintiff as urged by him as he was resident of Chennai. There is every possibility for the plaintiff to contact with the defendant through telephone and inform his request. The document filed under Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 are not helpful to the case of defendant as they are only replica of the allegations mentioned in the written statement. The non mentioning of particulars of 2nd notice in the plaint by plaintiff is not at all helpful to the case of defendant. The said notice was issued by the plaintiff for the purpose of reminding the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property by explaining its necessity. As such, there is no necessity for him to mention the same in the plaint. In view of the aforementioned reasons, I did not find any bonafides on the part of defendant and the allegations mentioned in the written statement. As such, I am not believe the contention of defendant.

16.ISSUE NO. 2 :

The plaintiff also claimed damages @ Rs.98,600/ for the unauthorised use and occupation of plaint schedule property by defendant after the termination of his lease. The plaintiff had claimed the damages from May, 2015 till delivery of Vacant possession by the defendant. It is an admitted fact that the defendant was continued in the plaint schedule property after the termination of his tenancy under Ex.A.1 quit notice. From the date of service of the said notice, the defendant will be termed as Tenant by Holding Over. In those circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages for unauthorized use and occupation of plaint schedule property. In this case except the evidence of P.w.1, there is no other evidence on record, to estimate the prevailing rental values in the locality of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff did not choose to examine any of the tenants in that locality to know about the existing rental values. As per the contention of both the parties, the plaint schedule property was situated in a residential locality and it is an apartment. As could be seen from the plaint, there is no understanding between the parties with regard to the future enhancement of rent. Either of the parties could not refer anywhere, in their proceedings with regard to the quantum of percentage of enhancement of rent. Initially, the rent for the plaint schedule property is Rs.5,800/ p.m in the year 2014 but the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the premises in the year 2015 only as the plaint schedule property is required for his personal occupation. There is no scope for the plaintiff to enhance the rent as alleged by the defendant. The plaint is also silent with regard to the particulars of damages claimed by him. In the absence of any cogent evidence from the side of plaintiff with regard to the damages, this court is not inclined to grant the same. However, the plaintiff is at liberty to move separate application to ascertain the damages by placing cogent evidence. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

17.ISSUE NO. 3 :

In view of answer to Issues 1 & 2, the suit shall be partly decreed.

In the result, this suit is partly decreed with costs directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property within 3 months, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get evict him through process of court. So far as damages is concerned, this suit is dismissed. However, the plaintiff is at liberty to file a separate application to ascertain damages by placing cogent evidence.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of March, 2017. Sd/ P. Ramana Reddy, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1/Ch. Kishore DW.1/ Y.V.S.S. Sai Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : 13032015 : Quit notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A.2 : 04052015 : Reply notice issued by the defendant to Ex.A.1.

For Defendant:

Ex.B.1 : 29062015 : Notice issued by the plaintiff through his counsel.

Ex.B.2 : 14072015 : Reply notice issued by the defendant to Ex.B.1.

Sd/ P. Ramana Reddy, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

OS/1201/2016

T.ARUNA KUMARI vs SHAIK BABA TAJUDDIN

17 Mar 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri P. Ramana Reddy, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 17th day of March, 2017.

O.S.NO. 1201 / 2016

Between :

T. Aruna Kumari :: Plaintiff.

And: Shaik Baba Tajuddin :: Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 16032017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Anantha Babu, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri P. Y. Kiran Kumar, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 1,23,650/ being the principal and interest due on a pronote, dt.21022014 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.75,000/ repayable with interest at 24 % per annum and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint as follows : It is submitted that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.75,000/ from the plaintiff on 21022014 at Vijayawada for the purpose of family expenses and executed a promissory note on the even date agreeing to repay the same along with interest at 24 % per annum either to the plaintiff or her order on demand. Despite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay any amount due under the pronote and postponed the same on one pretext or the other even after issuance of legal notice, dt. 24072015. The said notice was received by the defendant on 27072015 and he neither complied the demand nor issued any reply. Hence the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit.

3.The brief averments stemming out from the written statement of the defendant as follows : The defendant denied all the averments mentioned in the plaint in verbatim. He further submitted that the plaintiff is a L.I.C agent. The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/ from the plaintiff in the year 2011 for payment of insurance premium dues. By that time, the plaintiff obtained blank signed promissory note and signed cheque from him towards security. He discharged the entire debt due by him along with interest. But the plaintiff failed to return the blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheque till now. Inspite of repeated demands made by him, the plaintiff postponed the same on one pretext or other. Taking advantage of the employment of the defendant, the plaintiff was not returned the blank signed promissory note and cheque as she was doing call money business. In order to harass him for huge amount, the plaintiff filed this false suit basing on the blank signed promissory note already available with him. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit. Hence, he requested the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the averments in the plaint and written statement, the following issues were settled for trial :

1. Whether the defendant discharged the entire amount borrowed from the plaintiff ?

2. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

3. Whether any consideration was passed to the defendant under the suit pronote ?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant ?

5. To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined P.Ws.1 & 2 and exhibited the document Exs. A.1 to A.3. The defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B.1 was marked.

6.Heard the counsel for plaintiff. No representation for defendant. Hence treated no arguments.

7.The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff successfully established the execution of Ex.A.1 pronote by examining himself as P.w.1 and scribe of Ex.A.1 pronote as P.w.2. While cross examination nothing was elicited to disprove the execution of Ex.A.1 pronote by the plaintiff. By examining P.w.s 1 and 2 and by marking Exs.A.1 to A.3, the plaintiff established the execution of Ex.A.1 pronote by the plaintiff. The defendant failed to establish the allegations mentioned in the written statement. All the allegations mentioned in the written statement are invented for the purpose of this case and to delay the payment due to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed in the suit.

8. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and reiterated all the averments mentioned in the plaint in lieu of chief affidavit and same is admitted as her chief examination. Further she exhibited the documents Exs. A.1 to A.3. Ex.A.1 : 21022014 : Original Pronote executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A.2 : 24072015 : Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A.3 : 27072015 : Net tracking memo showing the service of Ex.A.2 on the defendant. In order to prove the execution of Ex.A.1 pronote and passing of consideration under it, she also examined P.w. 2 who is no other than the scribe on Ex.A.1 pronote categorically deposed that in his presence, the defendant received the entire amount mentioned in it and signed on the pronote. By that time, the attestor, plaintiff and defendant were also present and performed their part of contribution. While cross examination, D.W.1 stated that “he did not issue any notice in the year 2011 after discharging the entire amount for return of blank pronote. He did not lodge any police complaint against the plaintiff for non return of discharged promissory note. He had received the registered notice under Ex.A.2 got issued by the plaintiff and noted the contents in it. But he did not issue any reply notice by mentioning the averments in the plaint”.

9.In order to prove his case, the defendant himself examined as D.w.1 and reiterated all the averments mentioned in the written statement in lieu of chief affidavit and same is treated as his chief examination. He also exhibited Ex.B.1, Xerox copy of L.I.C Policy obtained by the defendant. While cross examination of P.Ws. 1 and 2, 4 nothing was elicited to disprove the averments mentioned in their chief affidavits. As such, all the averments mentioned in the chief affidavits of P.ws.1 and 2 remained unchallenged.

10. On scrutiny of the entire evidence and documents available on record, the main case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs. 75,000/ in the presence of attestor and scribe and executed Ex.A.1 pronote on the even date mentioned in it. Inspite of repeated demands made by her, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount due under Ex.A.1 pronote resulting the present suit. Whereas, the contention of the defendant is that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/ from the plaintiff in the year, 2011 for payment of L.I.C. Premium dues. By that time, the plaintiff obtained one blank signed pronote and cheque towards security for the above said amount borrowed by him. Thereafter, he had discharged the entire amount along with interest borrowed from the plaintiff. But the plaintiff failed to return the papers lying with her after discharging the entire amount borrowed from her even after repeated demands made by her. Thereafter, in order to gain wrongfully, the present suit was brought into existence by using the empty pronote already available with her. Under the suit pronote, no consideration was passed to him as alleged by the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant requested the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suit.

11.ISSUES NOS. 1 TO 3 :

According to the case of defendant no consideration was passed to him under Ex.A.1 promissory note. At this juncture, the burden is heavily lies on the defendant to establish with regard to the lying of empty documents with the plaintiff. As per the contention of plaintiff has been working as L.I.C Agent. She used to pay the premiums of the individuals who took the L.I.C premium through her and later insisted them to execute the pronote for the amounts paid by her. He further contended that the plaintiff also doing call money business. In the course of paying LIC premium the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/ from the plaintiff in the year 2011. By that time, the plaintiff obtained one blank promissory note and cheque for the purpose of security. Later, he had discharged the above said amount along with interest. Inspite of repeated demands made by him, the plaintiff did not choose to return the blank pronote and cheque already 5 kept with her towards security. Later, the present suit was brought into existence with the active annoyance of attestor and scribe. No consideration was passed to him under Ex.A.1 promissory note. He also exhibited the document under Ex.B.1 which is a L.I.C policy. The premium amount mentioned in Ex.B.1 is only Rs.408. Except filing of Ex.B.1, there is no piece of paper with the defendant that he had borrowed the amount in the year 2011 for the payment of L.I.C premium. The written statement is silent, the date on which the said amount was received from the plaintiff. At the same time, it was not mentioned in the written statement when the defendant discharged the entire amount alleged to have borrowed by him in the year 2011. Except the bold contention in the written statement, there is no piece of paper before the court with regard to the discharge of amount to the plaintiff. During the course of evidence, the defendant did not produce any evidence to prove the allegations mentioned in the written statement. Even at the time of cross examination of P.ws.1 and 2 nothing was elicited with regard to the obtaining of empty documents from the defendant towards security at the time of borrowing the amount of Rs.20,000/. The defendant categorically admitted that he had received Ex.A.2, register notice prior to filing of this suit. It is not the contention of defendant that Ex.A.2, register notice was not served on him. Ex.A.3 Postal tracking record clearly goes to show that Ex.A.2, registered notice was served on the defendant. The defendant also admitted that he had received Ex.A.2 register notice and noted the contents in it. Even after knowing the contents of Ex.A.2, the defendant did not choose to issue any reply by narrating the circumstances mentioned in the written statement. The non issuance of reply notice clearly goes to show that the defendant had accepted the contents of Ex.A.2, register notice.

12. The core contention of defendant is that even after discharging the amount due to the plaintiff, he did not choose to return the blank documents already kept with her towards security. Except the oral testimony of defendant, there is no piece of paper before the court that he had paid the entire amount to the plaintiff. He did not obtain any receipt from the plaintiff in token of receipt of entire amount borrowed by him. Without producing any document before this court, it cannot be said that the defendant had discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff. As per the averments in the written statement, it is clear 6 that there were some money transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant. There is every possibility to mention the allegations in the written statement in order to evade the payment due to the plaintiff. If really, the defendant had discharged the entire amount due to the plaintiff what prevented him to insist the plaintiff to return the blank pronote and cheque. No prudent men kept quiet without initiating any steps after discharging the entire amount without obtaining any acknowledgment. In this case, the defendant did not choose to obtain any receipt from the plaintiff after paying the entire amount. Even after receipt of Ex.A.2 register notice, he did not lodge any report before the police complaining against the plaintiff with regard to the blank documents kept with her. Even he did not issue any register notice calling upon the plaintiff to return the blank pronote and cheque by narrating the circumstances, mentioned in the written statement. The defendant categorically admitted that he did not initiate any steps to take back the empty documents already lying with the plaintiff. All these years, he kept idle without initiating any proceedings against the plaintiff to get back the documents. Even after receipt of Ex.A.2 register notice also, he did not move his little finger to initiate any proceedings against the plaintiff. It clearly shows that there is no truth in the contention of defendant. In the course of cross examination, the defendant expressed his intention to take Ex.A.1 pronote for expert opinion to determine the age of the ink. But he did not initiate any steps in that angle. The defendant did not turn up before this court to address his part of arguments. It clearly shows the attitude of the defendant and the falsity of things mentioned in the written statement. Viewed from any angle, the defendant failed to establish the allegations mentioned in the written statement. Accordingly, issues 1 to 3 are answered in favour of plaintiff against the defendant.

13.ISSUE NO. 4 :

In order to prove the execution of Ex.A.1 pronote, the plaintiff herself examined as P.w.1 and exhibited the documents Exs.A.1 to A.3. She was also examined P.w.2 who is no other than the scribe of Ex.A.1 pronote to prove its execution. P.w.2 categorically deposed with regard to the presence of all the stake holders at the time of execution of Ex.A.1 pronote and passing of entire consideration to the defendant. By examining P.w.s 1 and 2 and marking Exs.A.1 to A.3, the plaintiff had 7 discharged her burden with regard to the execution of Ex.A.1 pronote by the defendant.While cross examination of P.w.s 1 and 2 nothing was elicited to disprove the averments mentioned in their chief affidavit with regard to the execution of Ex.A.1 pronote and passing of consideration under it except some denials. The entire averments mentioned in the chief affidavit of P.w.s1 and 2 remained unchallenged in the absence of any proper cross examination. The plaintiff proved her case by examining P.W.s1 and 2 and by marking Exs.A.1 to A.3. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 juxtaposed Exs.A.1 to A.3, the plaintiff proved her case. As such, the defendant is liable to pay the amount due under the pronote. Accordingly issue no. 4 is answered in favour of plaintiff against the defendant.

14. ISSUE NO. 5 :

In view of answer to issues Nos. 1 to 4, the suit shall be decreed.

In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,23,650/ with subsequent interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter @ 6 % per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs.75,000/.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 17th day of March, 2017. Sd/ P. Ramana Reddy, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1/T. Aruna KumariD.W.1/Shaik Baba Tajuddin.

PW.2/Burepalli Babi.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : 21022014 : Original Pronote executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff..

Ex.A.2 : 24072015 : Office copy of legal notice.

Ex.A.3 : 27072015 : Net tracking memo showing the service of Ex.A.2 on the defendant.

For Defendant:

Ex. B.1 : 31032011 : Xerox copy of L.I.C Bond.

Sd/ P. Ramana Reddy, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

OS/941/2016

CIRCARS LAKSHMI MILL STORES vs SITA MAHALAKSHMI RICE TRADERS

16 Mar 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, .

VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Sri P. Ramana Reddy, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 16th day of March, 2017.

O.S NO. 941 / 2016

Between :

M/s. Circars Lakshmi Mill stores. :: Plaintiff.

And:

1. Sita Mahalakshmi Rice traders

2. Dutta Venkateswara Rao :: Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 14032017 for plaintiff evidence in the presence of Sri P.L. Prabhakar, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.88,300/ being the principal and interest due under khatha dealing with subsequent interest at 24 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint as follows : It is submitted that the plaintiff is one of the manufacturer and whole sale dealer in Mill spare parts and allied products. The 1st defendant is the firm and the 2nd defendant is proprietor of 1st defendant conducting rice business and used to purchase spare parts of rice mill from the plaintiff's company on credit basis from time to time by way of cash and credit by opening khatha in it. In that connection, the 1st defendant firm fell due an amount of Rs.90,000/ as on 27112015. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants issued a cheque for Rs.90,000/ towards full settlement and same was returned with an endorsement “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”. Since then, the defendants did not choose to pay the amount due under khata and postponed the same on one pretext or the other even after issuance of legal notice on 02072016. The defendant received 2 the same and kept quiet without complying the demand. Hence the present suit.

3.Immediately after registering the plaint, this court issued summons on defendant. Defendants called absent and set exparte and posted for plaintiff evidence.

4.The plaintiff filed chief affidavit and marked Exs. A.1 to A.7. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that even though the plaintiff issued legal notice, the defendants did not choose to pay the amount due under the khata. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed in the plaint. After hearing the arguments of plaintiff and considering the entire material on record now the point for consideration before this court is :

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed in the suit ?

5.In order to prove the case, the plaintiff examined its proprietor as P.W.1 and reiterated all the averments mentioned in the plaint in lieu of chief affidavit and same is admitted as his chief examination. He also exhibited the documents Exs. A.1 to A.7. Ex. A.1 : 30062016 : Account copy maintained by the plaintiff company relating to the defendant. Ex. A.2 : 10122015 : Dishonoured cheque issued by the defendant. Ex.A.3 : 06012016 : Memo issued by the plaintiff bank along with dishonoured cheque. Ex.A.4 : 02072016 : Office copy of legal notice got issued by plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A.5 : 08072016 : Tracking record of postal receipt showing service of Ex.A.4 notice on the defendant. Ex.A.6 : Tax registration certificate. Ex.A.7 : Authorisation given to me to give evidence before this Hon'ble Court. The very contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants opened a khata account with the plaintiff and purchased required spares on cash and credit for business purpose. They also agreed to repay the amount due to the plaintiff under khata with interest as per the custom and usage. Thereafter, the defendants did not choose to pay any amount inspite of repeated oral demands and got issued a registered notice. To establish the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant the plaintiff had produced the Account copy under which the defendants purchased the required spare parts and also the 3 khata maintained by him. The statement of account clearly goes to show that the defendants failed to pay the amount mentioned in the plaint. The evidence of P.W.1 juxtaposed Exs. A.1 to A.7, the plaintiff proved its case. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for decree against the defendant for the amount mentioned in the plaint. The defendants are liable to pay the said amount to the plaintiff as there is no proper defence from their end. Accordingly, this point is answered.

6.In view of answer to Point No. 1 the suit shall be decreed.

In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendants for a sum of Rs.88,300/ with subsequent interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.75,000/. Typed to my dictation, directly by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16th day of March, 2017.

Sd/ P. Ramana Reddy, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1/Popuri Kutumba Rao EXPARTE.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex. A.1 : 30062016 : Account copy maintained by the plaintiff company relating to the defendant.

Ex. A.2 : 10122015 : Dishonoured cheque issued by the defendant.

Ex.A.3 : 06012016 : Memo issued by the plaintiff bank along with dishonoured cheque.

Ex.A.4 : 02072016 : Office copy of legal notice got issued by plaintiff to the defendant.

Ex.A.5 : 08072016 : Tracking record of postal receipt showing service of Ex.A.4 notice on the defendant.

Ex.A.6 : Tax registration certificate.

Ex.A.7 : Authorisation given to plaintiff to give evidence before this

Hon'ble Court.

For Defendant: NIL

Sd/ P. Ramana Reddy, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Order Record 423 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/1103/2016	MOHAMMAD RIYAZ and ANOTHER vs BODDAPATI TIRUMALA NAGENDRA BABU and ANOTHER	24 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/1191/2016	CH.KISHORE vs Y.V.S.S.SAI KUMAR	22 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/1201/2016	T.ARUNA KUMARI vs SHAIK BABA TAJUDDIN	17 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/941/2016	CIRCARS LAKSHMI MILL STORES vs SITA MAHALAKSHMI RICE TRADERS	16 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/1205/2016	KORADA SATYANARAYANA vs YENUGULA LAKSHMANA RAO	16 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/1281/2016	VEMURI VENKATA LAKSHMI alias LAKSHMI vs PUSALA SIVA PARVATHI	14 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/559/2016	PUVVADA KIRAN KUMAR vs DHULIPALLA LAKSHMI CHANDRA SEKHAR	13 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/598/2016	TEEGALA SRILAKSHMI vs TEEGALA SRINIVASA RAO	07 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/1162/2016	PUTCHAKAYALA CHAKRADHARA REDDY vs H.SAMUEL	03 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/25/2017	G.P.M.K.ARYA and 2 OTHERS vs VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION	20 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/476/2016	PARUCHURI SRINIVASA RAO vs KOKKILIGADDA PHILIP	17 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/155/2015	Rev Pachigolla Edward Singh Samuel vs Most Rev Dr G. Dyvasirvadam	16 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1259/2015	CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION LIMITED vs PACHIGOLLA EDWARD SINGH SAMUEL	16 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/1259/2015	CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION LIMITED vs PACHIGOLLA EDWARD SINGH SAMUEL	16 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/441/2016	PATHAN SAFIA vs SHAIK KHADAR BASHA	13 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/660/2016	UPPALAPATI SUBBA LAKSHMI ALIAS SUBBAMMA vs UPPALAPATI LAKSHMI RAJYAM	10 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/953/2016	PANCHAKARLA KISHORE vs INTI VEERA VENKATA RAMA RAO	07 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1323/2016	MOHAMMAD KHADAR vs SHAIK MUNTAZ and ANOTHER	07 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/528/2016	AKULA GOPALA KRISHNA RAO vs KANUPURAMJAYA KRISHNA and ANOTHER	06 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/570/2016	ANGARA LAKSHMI KOKILAMMA vs CHEEIGA NANCHARAIAH	06 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1218/2016	KANCHARLAPALLI RUKMINI DEVI vs KANCHARLAPALLI MAHAVEERA NARAYANA	03 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/870/2016	THIRUMALASETTY VENKATESWARA RAO vs BALAGA LAKSHMANA	02 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/278/2016	TALASILA SAMBASIVA RAO vs VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION	27 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/645/2016	VEGE SIVA RANI vs PEETHA SRIHALA DEVI	27 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
OS/780/2016	CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, BENZ CIRLE , VIZ vs MEDEPUDI VENKATARAMA MOHAN RAO,	27 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
OS/1215/2016	V.PRABHU KISHORE vs GIDDA GANGACHALAM and ANOTHER	27 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
OS/464/2016	GOWTHAM ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGH SCHOOL vs BOLLEDDU ANIL RAJ and ANOTHER	25 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1242/2016	GONDETI VENKATA RAMANA REDDY alias G.VENKATA RAMAN vs KOTTAPU UMA MAHESWARA RAO	25 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
OS/1321/2016	KOMMASANI HARI vs SHAIK VENKANNA SAHEB ALIAS MEERAVALI	24 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
OS/480/2016	RATANLAL vs A.SRIKANTH	20 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/182/2016	BATHINA KISHORE KUMAR vs MAGULURI SITARAVAMMA and ANOTHER	06 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/221/2016	G.SATYA LINGAM vs MAGULURI SEETHARAVAMMA and ANOTHER	06 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/82/2016	SINGAMPALLI ANIL KUMAR vs PYLA RAMAN AND 3 OTHERS	05 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/622/2016	DOMAKONDA SAMUDRAVENI vs THODETI SWARUPA RANI	05 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/908/2016	VEERAMACHINENI MANI CHAKRA JAIIPAL vs BATHINA SAMBASIVA RAO	04 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
OS/516/2016	KAPILVAYI BALA VENKATA KRISHNA MURTHY and 4 OTHERS vs NIMMAGADDA RAMARAO and 3 OTHERS	03 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/381/2016	BOPANA SAI KISHAN and ANOTHER vs BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.	02 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/484/2016	MUSUNURU RAMA KRISHNA vs VEDANTHAM VENUGOPALA KRISHNAMACHARYULU and 5 OTHER	02 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/713/2016	NAGAVARAPU VANI vs MEDA KRISHNA KUMARI	02 Jan 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/470/2016	V.PRABHU KISHORE vs DIVI VENKATA SAI PRASAD and ANOTHER	30 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/982/2016	SUKAMANCHI VENKATA CHANDRA RAO vs BANDUNATHAM JOSH MERI	30 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/1252/2016	BANDI SIVA SASI KALA vs PATTETI RAVI KUMAR	29 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/1234/2016	S.VENKATESWARA RAO vs SURA SRINIVASA RAO	28 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/95/2016	STATE BANK OF INDIA vs LAVANYA MAHILA DWACRA GROUP and 10 OTHERS	23 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/499/2016	CHOHAN SANTHA BAI vs TEJASWI ENTERPRISES	23 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/701/2016	MULI PICHHI REDDY vs PERAM NAGA MANI	19 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/582/2016	KOMMAVARAPU NAGESWARA RAO vs GUDELA LALITHA	16 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/267/2016	NEELAM VENU MADHAV vs RAVI SAMBASIVA RAO	09 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/1005/2016	DUNNA RAVI KUMAR vs DUNNA RAJANI	06 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/1504/1999	Kuricheti Annapurnamma-died vs Laddika Seshaagiri Rao	01 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/538/2016	GOVADA SAROJINI DEVI vs BAVIREDDY MADHUSUDHANA RAO	28 Nov 2016	Judgment	—
OS/1076/2015	KAPAVARAPU PADMAVATHI vs ABBURU UPENDRA ARUN AIR ESWARA PRASADA RAO	25 Nov 2016	Judgment	—
OS/1200/2015	SHAIK AFZAL BASHA vs THE VIJAYAWADA SOCIAL CLUB AND LITERARY SOCIETY	22 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/674/2016	KATTUKOLU PRASAD REDDY vs BOTTA NAGENDRA REDDY	15 Nov 2016	Judgment	—
OS/594/2016	SHAIK FEROOJ ALIAS RAMTULLAH vs R.HYMAVATHI	10 Nov 2016	Judgment	—
OS/783/2016	THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF HYDERABAD DECCAN SOC vs MODERN BOOKS AND STATIONARY STORES	10 Nov 2016	Judgment	—
OS/503/2016	SAKHAMURI LAKSHMAIAH vs KARRI DURGA RAO and 2 OTHERS	09 Nov 2016	Judgment	—
OS/403/2016	DURU KOTESWARA RAO vs DURU ABRAHAM	08 Nov 2016	Judgment	—
OS/403/2016	DURU KOTESWARA RAO vs DURU ABRAHAM	08 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/404/2016	DURU ANIL vs DURU KOTESWARA RAO and ANOTHER	08 Nov 2016	Judgment	—
OS/404/2016	DURU ANIL vs DURU KOTESWARA RAO and ANOTHER	08 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/863/2016	V.LAKSHMI KISHORE vs JUJJAVARAPU VIJAYA KUMAR and ANOTHER	08 Nov 2016	Judgment	—
OS/314/2016	VASA BALAIAH vs SHAIK MASTAN	04 Nov 2016	Judgment	—
OS/322/2016	MALLISETTY SRINIVASA RAO vs SHAIK MASTAN	04 Nov 2016	Judgment	—
OS/122/2016	CHODAVARAPU VEERAIAH vs GARIKE YEDUKONDALU AND ANOTHER	03 Nov 2016	Judgment	—
OS/874/2015	DONEPUDI BALARAMA VENKATA KRISHNA PRASAD vs VEERANKI SRINIVASA RAO	02 Nov 2016	Judgment	—
OS/526/2014	Malneedi Vijaya Durga vs Rompicherla Subba Rao	31 Oct 2016	Judgment	—
OS/793/2014	Mandapati Venkata Subbamma vs Rokalla Srinu	28 Oct 2016	Judgment	—
OS/1027/2016	SHAIK NAZEEMA BEGUM alias MOTI vs KADHAROON	28 Oct 2016	Judgment	—
OS/1283/2015	CHIVUKULA SITHA ANNAPURNA vs TAVVA SEETHARAMANJANEYULU	25 Oct 2016	Judgment	—
OS/1283/2015	CHIVUKULA SITHA ANNAPURNA vs TAVVA SEETHARAMANJANEYULU	25 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/145/2011	Ms. Lakshmi Finance Rep. by its GPA holder . vs Attuluru Narasimha Rao	24 Oct 2016	Judgment	—
OS/354/2016	KONAKALLA JYOTHILAKSHMI vs RAJULAPATI SATYANARAYANA	18 Oct 2016	Judgment	—
OS/819/2016	NALLIBOYINA SWAMY vs SHAIK SOLMON	18 Oct 2016	Judgment	—
OS/875/2016	MALLAMPATI SYAMALA vs KATTA SIMHACHALAM	17 Oct 2016	Judgment	—
OS/891/2016	TADISETTY LAKSHMAIAH vs NAKKA NARASIMHA RAO	17 Oct 2016	Judgment	—
OS/898/2016	MANNE VISHNU vs TALAM VENKATA SIVAJI PRABHU	17 Oct 2016	Judgment	—
OS/285/2016	PACHA VENGAIAH vs CHINTALA GANESH REDDY	06 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/549/2016	GARIKE SRINIVASA RAO vs JULURU VARA PRASADA RAO	30 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1333/2015	DUGGI VEERA KOTESWARA RAO vs ABDUL KHAZA	30 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/237/2016	PAYYAVULA RAMU vs MADDALI KRISHNA KUMARI AND 2 OTHERS	22 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/427/2016	RUDRA VENKATA NARASIMHA RAO vs GARRE RAMANAMMA and ANOTHER	22 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/296/2016	SAKHAMURI LAKSHMAIAH vs SHAIK MOHAMMAD BASHA	16 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/683/2016	MARAMREDDY ANJANEYA REDDY vs SAYYAD KHALIL	16 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/662/2016	V. PRABHU KISHORE vs MANDAPATI SRINIVASA RAO	09 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1254/2015	VASANTHA SRINIVASA RAO and 2 OTHERS vs PEDDI PRASADA RAO	23 Jul 2016	Judgment	—
OS/1196/2015	PATAMATA VENKATESWARA RAO and another vs JONNALAGADDA KASTURI and 2 OTHERS	19 Jul 2016	Judgment	—
OS/297/2016	SAKHAMURI LAKSHMAIAH vs BADUGU SANJEEVA RAO	11 Jul 2016	Judgment	—
OS/297/2016	SAKHAMURI LAKSHMAIAH vs BADUGU SANJEEVA RAO	11 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/309/2015	Viswanadha Raghunadha Babu vs The president jayati enclave owners	17 Jun 2016	Judgment	—
OS/496/2016	SUNKARA RAMA LAKSHMI vs TUMMAPUDI MALLESWARI	13 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1299/2015	TIRUMALASETTY SURESH KUMAR vs FRANSCIAN MISSIONARY BROTHERS	10 Jun 2016	Judgment	—
OS/1299/2015	TIRUMALASETTY SURESH KUMAR vs FRANSCIAN MISSIONARY BROTHERS	10 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/254/2016	CANARA BANK vs CHALASANI PRASAD and ANOTHER	08 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/329/2016	RAAVI SRINIVASA RAO vs KONGANA MALLIKHARJUNA RAO	08 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/507/2016	TANGELLAMUDI SRINIVASA RAO and 3 OTHERS vs SRIRAMA KOTESWARA RAO	08 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/57/2016	KADIYALA PADMAVATHI vs BORRA NAGESWARA RAO	07 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/915/2015	STATE BANK OF INDIA vs MOTHER THERESSA DWAKRA GROUP AND 10 OTHERS	07 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/383/2016	DASARI RAMA MOHANA SUBBA RAO vs VALLURI BHAGYA LAKSHMI	06 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/227/2016	B.CHALAPATHI SURI vs RAGALA SYAM KUMAR	03 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—

Showing 100 of 423 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Mar 2017		9
Feb 2017		13
Jan 2017		17
Dec 2016		11
Nov 2016		16
Oct 2016		11
Sep 2016		1
Aug 2016		7
Jul 2016		4
Jun 2016		14
May 2016		4
Apr 2016		7

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri P.Ramana Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M., handled?

Sri P.Ramana Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M., has handled 475 court orders since 2014 at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada. The average disposal rate is 13 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri P.Ramana Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M., hear?

Based on available records, Sri P.Ramana Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M., primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada.

Where is Sri P.Ramana Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M., currently posted?

Sri P.Ramana Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M., is posted as II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri P.Ramana Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M., available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri P.Ramana Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M., are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri P.Ramana Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M., dispose cases?

Sri P.Ramana Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M., disposes approximately 13 cases per month, based on 475 orders handled over their tenure at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada.

Since when is Sri P.Ramana Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M., serving?

Sri P.Ramana Reddy, B.Sc., LL.M., has been serving at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada since 2014.

Case Types

OS 96%

A 3%

S 1%

EP 0%

Posting History

Apr 2014 — May 2017

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada · 475 orders

Other Judges at this Court

M.Suneel Kumar

II Addl. District Judge-cum- Metropolitan Sessions...

15 orders

Smt. L. Thejovathi

III Additional District and Sessions Judge Vijayaw...

0 orders

K.neelima

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge Vijayaw...

0 orders

G.Rajeswari

V Additional District and Sessions Judge Vijayaw...

686 orders

Bandela Abraham

VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) V...

620 orders

N.padmavathi

VIII Additional District and Session Judge (FTC)...

3 orders

Sri G.Subrahmanyam

XII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC)...

3 orders

Smt M.Sudha

XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC)...

7 orders

Smt K. Madhavi Devi

Principal Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

218 orders

Smt.K.Vani

I Additional Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

0 orders

Sri S.Venkateswara Reddy

II Additional Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

458 orders

Smt.k.aruna

III Additional Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

0 orders

Smt.M.Satya Kumari

IV Addl Senior Civil Judge cum V ACMM Vijayawada

0 orders

Sri K.P. Sai Ram

VI Addl Senior Civil Judge Vajayawada

408 orders

Sri.Ch.L.Srinivasa Rao

VII Addl Senior Civil Judge Vajayawada

377 orders

Sri Chapala Srinivasa Babu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- Metropolitan Magis...

1,336 orders

Ms. G.devika

I Addl Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Metr...

301 orders

Sri S.Srikanth

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Additional Met...

0 orders

Shaik Rehana

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- III Additional...

969 orders

T.anjani S.s.rama Aditya Rishik

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- IV Additional M...

600 orders

Smt P Santhi

V Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- V Addition...

0 orders

B Radha Rani

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

1,518 orders

M.S.Karimulla

I Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

1,985 orders

Smt.Nettem Radhika

II Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

319 orders

Sri.P.Tirumala Rao

III Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

1,555 orders

Sri U.Ram Mohan

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

15 orders

Sri.Marapu Sridhar

VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vijayawad...

0 orders

Sri P.Ramana Reddy

IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vijayawada

0 orders

KP Sai Ram

XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vijayawada

0 orders

Sri Kandepu Seeta Rama Krishna Rao

Special Judge for CBI Cases, Vijayawada

125 orders

A.anitha

Spl. Judge for Trial of Criminal Cases Relating to...

18 orders

N Radhika

Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Vijaya...

70 orders

Kampa Jayalakshmi

Special Judge for POCSO Act Vijayawada.

0 orders

Sri G.Bhupal Reddy

Special Judge for Commercial Disputes Vijayawada

28 orders

← View all judges at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada