Sri P. Sriniva Rao

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Senior Civil Judge, Addanki (Taluka) · Prakasham · Andhra Pradesh

Sri P. Sriniva Rao, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, is posted at Senior Civil Judge, Addanki (Taluka), Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh, India. 162 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, EP cases.

162

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/27/2010

Nuthalapati Seetharamaiah vs Nuthalapati Ambeswara Rao

27 Oct 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

ADDANKI

Present: Sri P. SRINIVASA RAO.

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi

FAC:: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki Friday, this the 27th day of October, 2017.

O. S. No.27 of 2010

Between: Nuthalapati Seetharamaiah S/o. Late Brahmanandam, 50 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Ramakuru Village, Pangulur Mandal, Prakasam District.….Plaintif

AND

1.Nuthalapati Ambeswara Rao S/o.Brahmanandam,55 Years, Hindu, Business, presently residing at Mehadi Patnam, Near Saibaba temple, Toly Chowck, Hyderabad.

2.Nuthalapati Nageswara Sarma S/o. Late Brahmanandam, 44 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.Padma Sali bazaar, Valaparla Village, Martur Mandal.

3.Manam Hari Babu S/o. Anjaiah, 38 Years, Hindu, Lecturer, M.S.R.Junior College, R/o. Ramakuru Village, Panguluru Mandal.…Defendants

This case coming before me on 25.10.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Uday Bhaskar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants remained ex-parte and having been heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of plaint schedule property into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

02. The plaint averments are, in brief, as follows:-

The plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are brothers and sons of late Nuthalapati Brhamanandam. The plaintiff's mother also predeceased his father. The plaintiff's father died on 4.12.2008 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 without executing any document. After the death of plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2's father Brahmananadam, they succeeded item No.1 to 4 of plaint schedule properties. The 1st defendant has been living 2 at Hyderabad, the 2nd defendant was allowed to live in item No.4 of plaint schedule thatched hut. But the 2nd defendant without having any manner of right wanted to dispose off the thatched house along with vacant site in favour of 3rd defendant. On 3.2.2010 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to defendants 2 and 3. The defendants 2 and 3 gave reply with false allegations.

Inspite of issuance of legal notice, the 3rd defendant purchased item No.3 of plaint schedule property from the 2nd defendant.

After receipt of notice, the 3rd defendant filed a caveat with false allegations stating that the property purchased by him has fallen to the share of 2nd defendant in partition about 25 years back and that the 3rd defendant purchased the same for valuable consideration. The registered sale deed, dated 6.2.2010 standing in the name of 3rd defendant is not binding on the plaintiff. In view of the reply notice and caveat, the plaintiff feels that it is not safe for him to keep the plaint schedule properties joint any longer and the plaintiff demanded the defendants 1 and 2 for amicable partition, for which the defendants did not cooperate.

Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for partition of plaint schedule properties into three equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff.

3. The defendants remained exparte.

4. To prove his case, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is Office copy of legal notice, Ex.A2 is served acknowledgment of Sub Registrar, Martur,

Ex.A3 is served acknowledgment of 2nd defendant, dated 5.2.2010, Ex.A4 is served acknowledgment of 3rd defendant,dated 5.2.2010, Ex.A5 is caveat petition, dated 9.2.2010 and Ex.A6 is Office copy of reply notice, dated 10.2.2010 and Ex.A7 is C.C. of registered sale deed, dated 3 4.2.2010 standing in the name of 3rd defendant.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the point for consideration is whether the suit

schedule properties are liable for partition and the

plaintif is entitled for one such share from the suit

schedule properties?

POINT:-

7.I have perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, D1 and D2 are brothers.

The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of plaint schedule property into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to him with metes and bounds. The plaintiff seeks partition of suit schedule properties on the ground that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and as such he is entitled for 1/3rd share out of the suit schedule properties. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule properties are their ancestral properties and the 2nd defendant without having absolute right alienated item No.4 of schedule property to 3rd defendant and on 3.2.2010 he issued legal notice to D2 and D3 and notices served on D2 and D3, and D3 also obtained colluded document from D2 in respect of item No.3 of property and D2 has no right to alienate item No.3 and 4 of schedule properties to D3 and the sale deed is not binding on him and he demanded partition of plaint schedule properties and D1 and D2 declined for partition and he also issued legal notice and the defendants 1 and 2 did not come forward for partition and hence he filed the suit for partition of plaint schedule properties into three equal shares and allot one such share to him.

8. To prove his case, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 4 and filed his evidence in the form of chief-affidavit and reiterated the plaint averments. As such the examination-in-chief of PW.1 is nothing but replica of plaint. The evidence of PW.1 also supported by Exs.A1 to A7 documents. Ex.A1 office copy of legal notice would goes to show that the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiff, D1 and D2. Ex.A7 also clearly goes to show that the properties mentioned in the sale deed,

dated 4.2.2010 also the ancestral property of plaintiff, D1 and

D2. There is a clear recital in Ex.A7 that the property mentioned in the sale deed is ancestral property. As already noticed the defendants remained ex-parte and they did not resist the suit.

Thus, the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A1 and A7 remained unchallenged. There is no material before the Court to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1. The oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with

Exs.A1 and A7 clearly goes to show that the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiff, D1 and D2.

The 2nd defendant has no absolute right to execute Ex.A7 in favour of D3 and therefore, the same is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff is claiming 1/3rd share out of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff, D1 and D2 are brothers. The material on record clearly established that the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties of plaintiff, D1 and D2 and as such the plaint schedule properties are liable for partition. So, certainly, the plaint schedule property has to be divided into three shares, plaintiff, D1, D2 are entitled one share each and the sale deed executed by D2 in favour of D3 under Ex.A7 is not binding on the plaintiff. I answered the point accordingly.

9.In the result, there shall be a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule properties into three shares and to allot one such share each to the plaintiff, D1 and D2. In the 5 circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 27th day of October, 2017.

Junior Civil Judge,Darsi

FAC:Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For plaintif:- For defendants:-

P.W.1:N. Seetharamaiah -- Exparte–

Exhibits marked for plaintif

Ex.A1: Office copy of legal notice,

Ex.A2:Served acknowledgment of Sub Registrar, Martur,

Ex.A3:Served acknowledgment of 2nd defendant, dated 5.2.2010

Ex.A4:Served acknowledgment of 3rd defendant,dated 5.2.2010

Ex.A5: Caveat petition, dated 9.2.2010

Ex.A6:Office copy of reply notice, dated 10.2.2010

Ex.A7: C.C. of registered sale deed, dated 4.2.2010 standing in the name of 3rd defendant.

Exhibits marked for defendants

-NIL -

Junior Civil Judge,Darsi

FAC:Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.

OS/54/2016

Vijaya Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager vs Vellalacheruvu Venkateswarlu

30 Oct 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADDANKI

Present: Sri P. SRINIVASA RAO.

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi

FAC:: Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.

Monday, this the 30th day of October, 2017.

O. S. No. 54 of 2016

Between:

Vijaya Bank, Ongole, represented by its Prl. Officer-cum-Branch Manager, Dharavari Garden, Ongole.….Plaintif

AND

1.Vellalacheruvu Venkateswarlu S/o.Punnaiah, 54 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.Kommineni Vari palem, Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasam District.

2.Vellalacheruvu Veeranjaneyulu S/o.Venkateswarlu, 30 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.Kommineni Vari palem, Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasam District. 3.Kommineni Venkata Rao S/o. Veeraiah, 45 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.Kommineni Vari palem, Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasam District. …Defendants

This case coming before me on 25.10.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Raghava Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants remained ex-parte and having been heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of amount of

Rs.1,80,681/- from the defendants.

2.The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:-

The defendants approached the Plaintiff-Bank for sanction of agricultural loan for Rs.2,70,000/- for establishing dairy unit by 1st defendant defendants 2 and 3 are agreed to stand as guarantors to 1st defendant till discharge of the loan.

On 12.10.2011 the defendants 1 and 2 executed a simple mortgage bond in favour of plaintiff bank for Rs.2,70,000/-. On 01.12.2011 the 1st defendant gave an application and the loan of Rs.2,70,000/- was sanctioned repayable within 60 monthly instalments with a gestation period of 6 months. On 01.12.2011 the 1st defendant executed loan agreement cum hypothecation deed in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,70,000/- and he also agreed to pay the amount with interest at 3% 2 subject to minimum of 13.65% p.a. as monthly rests and also agreed to pay 2%extra rate of interest on default amount. On 01.12.2011 the defendants 2 and 3 executed letter of guarantee in favour of plaintiff bank agreeing to stood as guarantor of 1st defendant till discharge of the loan by the 1st defendant for

Rs.2,70,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank disbursed the loan amount into the account of 1st defendant. The defendants received the amount and utilized. The defendants are not paid the regular instalments agreed by them and committed default in paying the instalments. The defendants 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to discharge the loan amount. On 9.11.2015 and on 18.12.2015 the plaintiff got issued a lawyer notice to defendants 1 to 3 to pay the loan amount and the defendants 1 to 3 did not pay the loan amount. The defendants 1 to 3 were due an amount of Rs.1,80,681/-. Hence, the suit is filed to recover the same with future interest and costs.

3. Summons served sufficiently on the defendants. The defendants failed to appear and they were set ex-parte.

4..To establish its case, the Plaintiff-Bank examined its Branch Manager, as

P.W.1 and documents Exs.A1 to A13 are marked.

P.W.1/L.Santhivardhan, is Branch Manager of Plaintiff-Bank. Ex.A1 is loan application, dated 1.12.2011, Ex.A2 is sanction order, dated 01.12.2011, Ex.A3 registered mortgage deed, dated 12.10.2011 of D1 and D2, Ex.A4 is loan agreement cum hypothecation, deed of D1, dated 1.12.2011, ExA5 is letter of guarantee of D1 and D3, Ex.A6 is acknowledgment of liabiility of D1, dated 1.11.2014, Ex.A7 is office copy of lawyer notice, dated 9.11.2015 to D1 and D2,

Ex.A8 postal acknowledgment of D1, dated 12.11.2015, Ex.A9 is postal acknowledgment of D3, dated 12.11.2015, Ex.A10 is office copy of legal notice to

D1 and D2, dated 18.12.2015, Ex.A11 is postal acknowledgment of D1, dated 21.12.2015, Ex.A12 is postal acknowledgment of D3, dated 21.12.2015 and

Ex.A13 is account copy, dated 6.2.2016.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants ?

POINT:

7. I have carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence brought on record. P.W.1 is the Branch Manger of Plaintiff-Bank and he filed his chief- evidence in the form of affidavit. In such affidavit he reiterated the averments of plaint. The evidence of P.W.1 also supported by Exs.A1 to A13. The evidence of P.W.1, the

Branch Manager shows that the 1st defendant filed an application under Ex.A1 to the Plaintiff-Bank on 1.12.2011 and on the same day, the plaintiff bank sanctioned

Rs.2,70,000/- under Ex.A2. Further, the 1st defendant executed hypothecation deed under Ex.A4. The defendants 1 and 3 executed letter of guarantee in favour of plaintiff bank under ExA5and the defendants 2 and 3 are stood as a guarantor of the loan amount of 1st defendant. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank and also issuance of legal notice under Ex.A7 and A10, the defendants did not repay the loan amount. The further evidence of P.W.1 is that as per statement of account under Ex.A13, the defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,80,681/- to the Plaintiff-Bank and the defendants have failed to pay the said outstanding amount and the defendants are liable to pay the same to the Plaintiff-Bank. Ex.A13 Statement of account of defendants, which is prepared in regular course of business and a statutory presumption is also available of its correctness under the Bankers Books of Evidence Act. Therefore,the defendants were due an amount of Rs.1,80,681/- to the Plaintiff-Bank on the date of filing of suit. Further, the defendants are set ex-parte and the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs

A1 to A13 remained unchallenged.

8.Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 Branch Manager and Exs. A1 to A13 proves the plaintiff case and accordingly the Plaintiff-Bank is entitled to recover suit amount from the defendant as prayed for.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.1,80,681/- with costs and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization and a preliminary decree is passed for sale of mortgaged property. If the amount is not 4 paid within six months redeeming the mortgage property; on such failure, plaintiff is entitled to apply for final decree for sale of mortgaged property for realization of the decretal amount. The defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the suit amount.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 30th day of October, 2017.

Junior Civil Judge,Darsi. FAC:Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

P.W.1:L.Santhivardhan Exparte.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Ex.A1:Loan application, dated 1.12.2011NIL

Ex.A2:Sanction order, dated 01.12.2011

Ex.A3:Registered mortgage deed, dated 12.10.2011 of D1 and D2

Ex.A4:Loan agreement cum hypothecation, deed of D1, dated 1.12.2011

ExA5:Letter of guarantee of D1 and D3

Ex.A6:Acknowledgment of liabiility of D1, dated 1.11.2014

Ex.A7:Office copy of lawyer notice, dated 9.11.2015 to D1 and D2

Ex.A8:Postal acknowledgment of D1, dated 12.11.2015

Ex.A9:Postal acknowledgment of D3, dated 12.11.2015

Ex.A10:Office copy of legal notice to D1 and D2, dated 18.12.2015

Ex.A11:Postal acknowledgment of D1, dated 21.12.2015

Ex.A12:Postal acknowledgment of D3, dated 21.12.2015

Ex.A13:Account copy, dated 6.2.2016.

JCJ, Darsi FAC PJCJ, Addanki.

OS/100343/2016

Ms. State Bank of India, Konidena Branch vs Kinnera Prabhakar Rao

30 Oct 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADDANKI

Present: Sri P. SRINIVASA RAO.

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi

FAC:: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Monday, this the 30th day of October, 2017.

O. S. No. 343 of 2016

Between: M/s. State Bank of India, Konidena Branch, Ballikurava Mandal, rep.by its Branch Manager.….Plaintif

AND

1.Kinnera Prabhakar Rao S/o. Subbaiah, 45 Years, Hindu, R/o.Vemavaram village, Ballikurava Mandal. 2.Kinnera Sambaiah S/o. Venkaiah, 70 Years, Hindu, R/o.Vemavaram village, Ballikurava Mandal. 3.Kinnera Yogaiah S/o.Siva Ramulu, 55 Years, Hindu, R/o.Vemavaram village, Ballikurava Mandal.…Defendants

This case coming before me on 11.10.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Dasaradha Ramaiah, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant remained ex-parte and having been heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of amount of

Rs.1,80,327/-from the defendants 1to 3.

2.The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:-

The defendants 1 and 2 approached the Plaintiff-Bank for sanction of a business loan for establishment of ten house under the name and style of Prabhu

Tent House' by showing his agricultural land and the plaintiff bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendants 1 and 2 on 29.11.2010 under loan Account

No.31685702760. In this connection, the defendants 1 and 2 executed all necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the loan amount in 60 equal monthly instalments at Rs.3,333/- per and he also agreed to repay the same with 12% p.a., commencing from 17.03.2011. On the same day, the 1st defendant also executed an agreement of hypothecation. The 2nd defendant stood as a guarantor for repayment of loan amount by depositing his 2 title deed in respect of schedule property. The 2nd defendant also executed confirmation deed standing in his name. The 3rd defendant executed a deed of guarantee, dated 17.2.2011. Athe defendants 1 to 3 have executed debt or revival letter on 6.1.2014 in favour of plaintiff bank acknowledging their liability. Thus, the defendants 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the loan amount . But the defendants did not repay the loan amount properly inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank and issuance of legal notice the defendants did not pay plaintiff bank. That the defendants were due an amount of

Rs.1,80,327/- to the Plaintiff-Bank as on28.6.2016. Hence, the suit is filed to recover the same with future interest and costs.

3. The defendants remained exparte.

4.To establish its case, the Plaintiff-Bank examined its Branch Manager, as

P.W.1 and documents Exs.A1 to A7 are marked.

P.W.1/P.Mallikarjuna is Branch Manager of Plaintiff-Bank. Ex.A1 is loan application of the defendants, dated 29.11.2010, Ex.A2 is letter of arrangement executed by D1 in favour of plaintiff bank, Ex.A3 is Hypothication agreement executed by the defendants , dated 17.2.2011, Ex.A4 is registered sale deed,

Ex.A5 is confirmation deed, Ex.A6 Memorandum for recording creation of deposit of title deeds by D2, Ex.A7 is letter of confirmation , Ex.A8 deed of guarantee executed by D3 in favour of plaintiff bank, Ex.9 is debt revival letter, dated 6.1.2014 and Ex.A10 is debt revival letter executed by D2 in favour of plaintiff bank and Ex.A11 is true copy of statement of loan account, Dated 28.6.2016.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff- Bank.

6.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed?

POINT:

I have carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence brought on record. The plaintiff-bank filed the suit against the defendants for a personal 3 decree and also for preliminary decree of mortgage for recovery of amount. On behalf of the plaintiff-bank, its Manager P. Mallikharjuna examined as PW.1 who testified the averments of the plaint. The evidence of PW.1 also supported by

Exs.A1 to A11 documents. As noticed earlier, the defendants 1to 3 remained exparte and the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A11 remain unchallenged. The oral evidence of PW.1 and the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A11 proved the suit claim. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A11 proves that the defendants 1 and 2 have applied for sanction of loan under Ex.A1, executed Ex.A3 hypothecation agreement and registered sale deed under Ex.A4 as security for the repayment of the loan and 3rd defendant executed deed of guarantee under

Ex.A8 acknowledging the debt of the defendants 1 and 2, did not pay the loan and the defendants also executed revival letter under Exs.A9 and A10 and the defendants failed to pay the amount. Ex.A11 statement of account shows that the defendants was due an amount of Rs.1,80,327/- as on the date of filing of the suit.

Ex.A11 which is statement of account of defendants, which is prepared in regular course of business and a statutory presumption is also available of its correctness under the Bankers Books of Evidence Act. Exs.A1 to A11 clearly established the case of the plaintiff and Ex.A11 statement of account of the defendant proves the liability of the defendants, thereby the plaintiff -Bank is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendants and the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed. I answered the point accordingly.

7.In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.1,80,327/-- with costs and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization and a preliminary decree is passed for sale of mortgaged property. If the amount is not paid within six months redeeming the mortgage property; on such failure, plaintiff is entitled to apply for final decree for sale of mortgaged property for realization of the decretal amount. The defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the suit amount.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30th day of October, 2017.

Junior Civil Judge,Darsi. FAC:Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki 4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif: For Defendants: P.W.1:P. Mallikharjuna Ex-parte-.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintif:

Ex.A1:Loan application of the defendants, dated 29.11.2010

Ex.A2:Letter of arrangement executed by D1 in favour of plaintiff bank,

Ex.A3: Hypothication agreement executed by the defendants, dated 17.2.2011, Ex.A4: Registered sale deed,

Ex.A5:Confirmation deed

Ex.A6: Memorandum for recording creation of deposit of title deeds by D2

Ex.A7:Letter of confirmation

Ex.A8:Deed of guarantee executed by D3 in favour of plaintiff bank,

Ex.9:Debt revival letter, dated 6.1.2014

Ex.A10:Debt revival letter executed by D2 in favour of plaintiff bank

Ex.A11: True copy of statement of loan account, Dated 28.6.2016.

For defendants:-

NIL

JCJ, Darsi FAC: PJCJ, Addanki.

OS/100127/2017

Regula Rama Rao vs Istharla Anjamma

30 Oct 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADDANKI

Present: Sri P. SRINIVASA RAO.

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi

FAC:: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Saturday, this the 30th day of October, 2017.

O. S. No. 127 of 2017

Between: Regula Rama Rao S/o. Subbaiah, 59 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o.Medarametla Village, Korisapadu Mandal.….Plaintif

AND

1.Istharla Anjamma W/o.late Subba Rao, Hindu, Housewife, R/o.3rd line, Gandhi Nagar, Medarametla Village, Korisapadu mandal. 2.Ravuri Aruna W/o.Chitti Babu, Hindu, Housewife, R/o.P.Gudipadu village, Korisapadu Mandal. 3.Dhanyasi Nagamani W/o.Srinu, Hindu, Housewife, R/o.3rd line, Gandhi Nagar,Medarametla Village, Korisapadu mandal.…Defendants

This case coming before me on 20.10.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Subhash Babu, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant remained ex-parte and having been heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount of Rs.97,842/-from the defendant.

2.The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:-

On Istharla Subba Rao who is the husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 19.2.2013 for his family expenses and he mortgaged the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff as a security for discharge of amount and promising to repay the same along with interest @ 24% per annum on demand.

Subsequently, the said Subba Rao made part payment of Rs.1,000/- on 10.02.2014 and the same was endorsed on the back side of 3rd page of mortgatge deed in-spite of several demands, the said Subba Rao did not discharge the due amount. Later, he died intestate leaving behind his wife and daughters as legal heirs. After the death of Istharla Subba Rao the plaintiff demanded the defendants1 to 3, but the defendants did not choose to repay the debt inspite of legal notice. The defendants were due an amount of Rs.97,842/- . Hence, he filed the suit.

3. The defendants remained exparte.

4.To establish its case, the Plaintif examined as P.W.1 and documents Exs.A1 to A5 are marked.

P.W.1/R. Rama Rao is Plaintiff. Ex.A1 is original registered simple mortgage deed, dated 19.2.2013, Ex.A2 is Office copy of legal notice, Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgment, Ex.A4 is returned registered cover and Ex.A5 is returned registered covered.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed?

POINT:

7.I have carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence brought on record. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for preliminary decree of mortgage for recovery of amount. There is no dispute that the original borrower

Istharla Subba Rao who is the husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.97,842/- basing on Ex.A1 simple mortgage deed, dated 19.2.2013. In order to prove the suit claim, the plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A5.

The plaintiff as P.W.1 filed his examination-in-chief in the form of chief- affidavit and re-iterated the plaint averments in verbatim. According to him, Istharla Subba

Rao has borrowed Rs.50,000/- on 19.2.2013 for his family expenses and executed mortgage deed and also agreed to repay the same as and when demanded. The said Subbarao has also agreed to pay interest @ 24% per annum.

Inspite of demanded made by the plaintiff, on 10.2.2014 the said Subba Rao paid

Rs.1000/- to the plaintiff towards part payment and the same was endorsed on the back side of Ex.A1 mortgage deed. It is the further evidence of PW.1 that the

Subba Rao failed to repay the loan amount despite repeated demands and later he died intestate leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs. Ex.A-1 is the mortgage deed, dated 19.2.2013 clinchingly goes to show that Istharla Subba Rao has borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 mortgage deed. Ex.A-2-copy of legal notice, dated 20.2.2017 further goes to show that the defendants failed to repay the same along with interest as agreed despite notice and Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgment, Exs.A4 and A5 are returned registered covers. As already noticed, the defendants 1 to 3 remained ex-parte and did not choose to contest the matter and thus, the evidence of PW-1 remains intact and goes unchallenged. The original borrower Istharla Subba Rao, husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 died prior to filing of the suit without discharging the suit debt. The version of the plaintiff is that the deceased left immovable property i.e., Ex.A1 to the defendants and they have been enjoying the properties and that therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to decree against the estate lying in the hands of the defendants. It is well established law that the legal heirs of deceased have pious obligation to discharge the debts incurred by the original borrower. The defendants 1 to 3 being wife and children of deceased Istharla Subba Rao are liable to pay the suit debt from out of estate of deceased lying in their hands. The plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for.

Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.97,842/- with costs and future interest at the rate of 12%per annum from the date of suit till realization and a preliminary decree is passed for sale of mortgaged property. If the amount is not paid within six months redeeming the mortgage property; on such failure, plaintiff is entitled to apply for final decree for sale of mortgaged property for realization of the decretal amount. The defendants 1 to 3 are liable to pay the amount out of the estate of deceased Istharla Subba Rao lying in their hands.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30th day of October, 2017.

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi FAC:Prl. Junior Civil Judge,Addanki

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif: For Defendants:

P.W.1:R.Rama Rao Ex-parte-.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintif:

Ex.A1:Original registered simple mortgage deed, dated 19.2.2013

Ex.A2:Office copy of legal notice,

Ex.A3:Postal acknowledgment,

Ex.A4:Returned registered cover

Ex.A5:Returned registered covered.

For Defendants:

- NIL -

JCJ, Darsi

FAC:PJCJ, Addanki

OS/98/2007

Talluri Venkateswarlu vs Talluri Kotaiah

27 Oct 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDANKI

Present:Sri P. Srinivasa Rao,

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi,

(FAC) Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Friday , the 27 th day of October, 2017.

Original Suit No. 98 of 2007.

Between:

Talluri Venkateswarlu, S/o Yellamanda, aged about 80 years, Hindu, Kamma, R/o Dronadula Village of Martur Mandal. … Plaintiff

AND

1. Talluri Kotaiah, S/o Raghavulu, aged about 80 years,

2. Talluri Pothuluri, S/o Paramdhamaiah, aged about 50 years,

3. Talluri Veera Raghavulu, S/o Vemaiah, aged about 52 years,

4. Pentyala Seethamma, W/o Sreeramulu, aged about 52 years,

5. Katta Koteswaramma, W/o Hanumantha Rao, aged about 50 years,

6. Pentyala Basaveswara Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu, aged about 50 years.

All the defendants are Hindus, Cultivation,

Resident of Dronadula Village of Martur Mandal ... Defendants

Suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant and their men from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property by the plaintiff and for costs.

This suit coming on this day before me for notice of plaintiff in the presence of Sri I. Venkata Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri N. Hari Babu, Advocate for defendants No.1 to 5 and Sri N. Dasaradha Ramaiah Advocate for the Defendant No.6, upon the perusal of material available on record, this court delivered the following.

// JUDGMENT //

The plaintiff called absent. The Plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction in the year 2007. The suit is coming for trial since 06.05.2009. Inspite of granting more than 8 years the plaintiff failed to proceed the trial. The plaintiff also failed to appear before the court. The plaintiff filed this suit. Though it is for the plaintiff to proceed the trial but he failed to do so. It appears that the plaintiff has no interest to prosecute the matter. Hence the suit is dismissed for default of the plaintiff for nonprosecution. .

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day October, 2017.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Darsi, FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.

No oral evidence is adduced and no documents are marked on either side.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Darsi, FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDANKI

Present:Sri P. Srinivasa Rao,

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi,

(FAC) Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Friday , the 27 th day of October, 2017.

Original Suit No. 98 of 2007.

Between:

Talluri Venkateswarlu, S/o Yellamanda, aged about 80 years, Hindu, Kamma, R/o Dronadula Village of Martur Mandal. … Plaintiff

AND

1. Talluri Kotaiah, S/o Raghavulu, aged about 80 years,

2. Talluri Pothuluri, S/o Paramdhamaiah, aged about 50 years,

3. Talluri Veera Raghavulu, S/o Vemaiah, aged about 52 years,

4. Pentyala Seethamma, W/o Sreeramulu, aged about 52 years,

5. Katta Koteswaramma, W/o Hanumantha Rao, aged about 50 years,

6. Pentyala Basaveswara Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu, aged about 50 years.

All the defendants are Hindus, Cultivation,

Resident of Dronadula Village of Martur Mandal ... Defendants

Date of presentation: 27.04.2017.

Valuation and Court Fee: The relief of Permanent Injunction is valued at Rs.5,000/ on which a Court Fee of Rs.411/ is paid U/Sec. 26(c) of A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for nonprosecution.

2. that each party to bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 27 th day of October, 2017,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Darsi, FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.

// Table of costs //

Nil

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Darsi, FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.

NOTE: Both parties/counsel concerned in this case are hereby informed that the exhibited and non exhibited documents should retrieve within the stipulated time on a condition that “the same should produce as and when required by the court “ 3

Order Record 149 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/54/2016	Vijaya Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager vs Vellalacheruvu Venkateswarlu	30 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100127/2017	Regula Rama Rao vs Istharla Anjamma	30 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100127/2017	Regula Rama Rao vs Istharla Anjamma	30 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100343/2016	Ms. State Bank of India, Konidena Branch vs Kinnera Prabhakar Rao	30 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100343/2016	Ms. State Bank of India, Konidena Branch vs Kinnera Prabhakar Rao	30 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/27/2010	Nuthalapati Seetharamaiah vs Nuthalapati Ambeswara Rao	27 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/98/2007	Talluri Venkateswarlu vs Talluri Kotaiah	27 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/193/2011	Indian Bank Medarametla vs Shaik Sukur	27 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/290/2009	Gunji Ramanamma vs Thanneeru Venkaiah	27 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100122/2017	Ontipuli Srinivasa Rao vs Upputella Ankamma Rao	27 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100139/2017	Gurrapusala Sivaiah vs Munnangi Subbayamma	27 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100139/2017	Gurrapusala Sivaiah vs Munnangi Subbayamma	27 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/25/2010	Eluri Ramamohana Rao vs Konda Subba Rao Alias Gundayana	25 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/63/2016	Ms. Lakshmi Granites, vs Alla Sudharani	25 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/136/2015	Chennareddi Bhaskara Reddy vs Sudidela Venkata Seshi Reddy	25 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100287/2016	Sri Raghavendra Traders, vs Tata Ganga Rao	25 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100287/2016	Sri Raghavendra Traders, vs Tata Ganga Rao	25 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100362/2016	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, vs Dasari Pardhasaradhi	25 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/24/2010	Rayapati Lakshmi Surekha vs Rayapati Anjaneyulu	20 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/73/2015	Nannem Papaiah vs Gandham Anjaneyulu	20 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/194/2015	Andhra Bank, Ravinuthala vs Emani Subba Rao	20 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/231/2012	Nadipati haribabu vs Nandipati Venkata Vishnuvardana Rao@Addanki Setti	20 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/450/2011	Konidena Srirama Murthy vs Gunji Veera Vani	20 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/450/2011	Konidena Srirama Murthy vs Gunji Veera Vani	20 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100050/2017	Bandla Hanumantha Rao vs Sankula Chiranjeevi	20 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100051/2017	Bandla Hanumantha Rao vs Sankula Chiranjeevi	20 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100087/2016	Pentyala Kameswaramma vs Athaluri Srujani	20 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100349/2016	Shail Abdul Khadar vs Ramireddy Nithinreddy	20 Oct 2017	Decree	—
CC/100031/2014	Station House officer vs Sowpati David Livingstone	20 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
CC/100228/2010	The SHO Santhamaguluru Police station vs Balam bygari Rahamthulla	20 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100162/2017	Nimmagadda Venkateswarlu vs Anumalasetty Srinivasarao	13 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
CC/100197/2014	state Inspector of police vs Pandarinthan Babu	13 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/7/2008	Tanneeru Anjamma vs Thanneeru Nageswara Rao	11 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/96/2014	Modepalli srinivasa Rao vs Ayitham Nageswara Rao	11 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/96/2014	Modepalli srinivasa Rao vs Ayitham Nageswara Rao	11 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/147/2003	Maram Rajeswari vs State of Andhra Pradesh	11 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/240/2015	Balupunuri Ramanareddy vs Gunturu Babu	11 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100084/2017	Kumari Venkateswarlu vs Sanneboina Ravindra	11 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100140/2017	Bathula Kanakamma vs Pagidi Lakshmi	11 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100145/2017	M/s. State Bank of India, Konidena Branch. vs Uppamaguluru Nagaraju	11 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100145/2017	M/s. State Bank of India, Konidena Branch. vs Uppamaguluru Nagaraju	11 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100150/2017	Bathula Paddaiah vs Ponugupati Anjaiah	11 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100151/2017	Bathula Peddaiah vs Miriyala Pitchaiah	11 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100215/2017	Velpula Thirupathaiah vs Velpula Nagendaram	11 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100216/2017	Masanam Mastanaiah vs Velpula Nagendram	11 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100216/2017	Masanam Mastanaiah vs Velpula Nagendram	11 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100217/2017	Putchakayala peraiah vs VelpulaNagendaram	11 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100222/2017	M/s. State Bank of India, rep. by its branch Manager vs Tanneeru Yedukondalu	11 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100227/2017	Latchiboina Purnachandra Rao vs Velpula Nagendaram	11 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100231/2017	M/s. State Bank of India, rep. its Branch Manager vs Konduri Singaiah	11 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100260/2017	Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Aryavysya seva sangham vs Chinni Nageswararao	11 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/71/2015	Thalluri Seshaiah vs Paumarthi Santha Babu	06 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/71/2015	Thalluri Seshaiah vs Paumarthi Santha Babu	06 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/171/2005	Unnam Gopal Rao vs Bejavada Syamala	06 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100068/2017	Murikipudi Eeswaramma vs Jandrajupalli Brahmaiah	06 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100068/2017	Murikipudi Eeswaramma vs Jandrajupalli Brahmaiah	06 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100075/2017	M/s State Bank of India, vs Gogineni Madhu Manasa	06 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100115/2017	Thanniru Venkanna vs Gunji Kondalu	06 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100115/2017	Thanniru Venkanna vs Gunji Kondalu	06 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100125/2017	Ontipuli Ankamma Rao alias Anka Rao vs Challa Kondalu	06 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100125/2017	Ontipuli Ankamma Rao alias Anka Rao vs Challa Kondalu	06 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100170/2016	Podapati Sridevi vs Thokala Ramakrishna	06 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100170/2016	Podapati Sridevi vs Thokala Ramakrishna	06 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100206/2017	M/s. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager vs Challagundla Subba Rao	06 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100206/2017	M/s. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager vs Challagundla Subba Rao	06 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100099/2017	Vuppala Goverdhana Rao vs Kothi Srinivasa Rao	04 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100103/2017	Lella Bhumika being minor rep.by mother Lella Nagamani vs Lella Venkata Ramireddy	04 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100103/2017	Lella Bhumika being minor rep.by mother Lella Nagamani vs Lella Venkata Ramireddy	04 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100111/2016	Unnam Lazar vs Thanikonda Sudhakara Rao	04 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100113/2017	State Bank of India vs Rayani Rambabu	04 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100113/2017	State Bank of India vs Rayani Rambabu	04 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100178/2016	Dama Lakshminarayana vs Kalva Lakshminarayana	04 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100192/2017	Addanki vs Gorantla Sambaiah	04 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100192/2017	Addanki vs Gorantla Sambaiah	04 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100236/2016	Vikram Thirupathamma vs Patcha Vengamma	04 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100236/2016	Vikram Thirupathamma vs Patcha Vengamma	04 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100270/2016	Syed Moulalai vs Shaik Abida	04 Oct 2017	Decree	—
OS/100270/2016	Syed Moulalai vs Shaik Abida	04 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100326/2016	Eemani Koti Reddy vs Eemani Venkata Reddy	04 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
CC/100245/2014	Ms Shiam city Union Finance Lts vs Nadindla Srinivasa Rao	04 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
CC/100246/2014	Ms Shiram City union finance Ltd. vs Nadindla Srinivasa Rao	04 Oct 2017	Judgment	—
CRL.MP/9/2010	Karna Nagi Reddy vs Shaik Lathif	04 Oct 2017	Order	—
EP/100031/2015	Katta Raja Rao vs Thella Dayanandam	22 Sep 2017	Order	—
OS/9/2009	yerriboina anjaneyulu vs Vsyerriboinavenkateswarlu	22 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/124/2012	Thangirala Soubhagyam vs Rajula Venkata Ramana Reddy	22 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/234/1998	Kamma Venkata Rao-died vs Kamma Venkata Rao	22 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/268/2011	Indian Bank Medarametla vs Chilakala Nagaraju	22 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100028/2017	Ms. State Bank of India, vs Chittipothu Appa Rao	22 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100083/2017	Shaik Bashid Alias Basha vs Shaik Rizwana	22 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100135/2017	Singamsetty Venkateswara Rao vs Sivaratri Danaiah	22 Sep 2017	Decree	—
OS/100138/2017	Chennuri Venkata Subba Rao, vs Sivaratri Danaiah	22 Sep 2017	Decree	—
OS/100351/2016	Pothina Sowjanya vs Moparthi Pullamma	22 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/13/2008	Gottipati Lakshmamma vs Gottipati Koteswara Rao	20 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/67/2009	Thoka anumantharao vs Sareddu Yedukondulu	20 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/102/2014	Kamma Surya Theja vs Medarametla Mutyalamma	20 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/229/2002	Marripudi Subbarao vs Marripudi Nageswara Rao	20 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/212/2015	Dhulipalla Subba Rao vs Korrapati Ramanjaneyulu	15 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100019/2017	Ms. State Bank of India, vs Raydu Subba Rao	15 Sep 2017	Decree	—
OS/100019/2017	Ms. State Bank of India, vs Raydu Subba Rao	15 Sep 2017	Judgment	—
OS/100029/2017	Ms. State Bank of India, vs Chittipothu Subba Rao	15 Sep 2017	Decree	—

Showing 100 of 149 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2017		85
Sep 2017		76
Jul 2017		1

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri P. Sriniva Rao handled?

Sri P. Sriniva Rao has handled 162 court orders since 2017 at Senior Civil Judge, Addanki (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 47 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri P. Sriniva Rao hear?

Based on available records, Sri P. Sriniva Rao primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, CRL) at Senior Civil Judge, Addanki (Taluka).

Where is Sri P. Sriniva Rao currently posted?

Sri P. Sriniva Rao is posted as Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki at Senior Civil Judge, Addanki (Taluka), Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri P. Sriniva Rao available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri P. Sriniva Rao are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri P. Sriniva Rao dispose cases?

Sri P. Sriniva Rao disposes approximately 47 cases per month, based on 162 orders handled over their tenure at Senior Civil Judge, Addanki (Taluka).

Since when is Sri P. Sriniva Rao serving?

Sri P. Sriniva Rao has been serving at Senior Civil Judge, Addanki (Taluka) since 2017.

Case Types

OS 95%

CC 3%

EP 1%

CRL 1%

Posting History

Jul 2017 — Oct 2017

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki · 162 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Smt D. Naga Venkata Lakshmi

Senior Civil Judge,Addanki

606 orders

Smt J.Sri Seeta

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

1,843 orders

Smt. B.Akhila

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

1,018 orders

← View all judges at Senior Civil Judge, Addanki (Taluka)

Sri P. Sriniva Rao

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

ADDANKI

Present: Sri P. SRINIVASA RAO.

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi

O. S. No.27 of 2010

AND

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

schedule properties are liable for partition and the

plaintif is entitled for one such share from the suit

Witnesses Examined

For plaintif:- For defendants:-

Exhibits marked for plaintif

Exhibits marked for defendants

-NIL -

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADDANKI

Present: Sri P. SRINIVASA RAO.

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi

FAC:: Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.

O. S. No. 54 of 2016

AND

JUDGMENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADDANKI

Present: Sri P. SRINIVASA RAO.

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi

O. S. No. 343 of 2016

AND

JUDGMENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

EXHIBITS MARKED

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADDANKI

Present: Sri P. SRINIVASA RAO.

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi

O. S. No. 127 of 2017

AND

JUDGMENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif: For Defendants:

EXHIBITS MARKED

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDANKI

Present:­Sri P. Srinivasa Rao,

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi,

(FAC) Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Friday , the 27 th day of October, 2017.

Original Suit No. 98 of 2007.

AND

// JUDGMENT //

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDANKI

Present:­Sri P. Srinivasa Rao,

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi,

(FAC) Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Friday , the 27 th day of October, 2017.

Original Suit No. 98 of 2007.

AND

// Table of costs //

Nil

Present:Sri P. Srinivasa Rao,

Present:Sri P. Srinivasa Rao,