Kum R. Varalakshmi

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Prl.Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Kavali (Taluka) · Nellore · Andhra Pradesh

Kum R. Varalakshmi, PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, is posted at Prl.Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Kavali (Taluka), Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. 73 court orders on record since 2023. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/457/2022

PALAKEERTHI SAMUEL BABU vs PALAKEERTHI PRABHUDAS

12 Jan 2024

1 O.S.No.457/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAVALI

Present :Rokkam Varalakshmi

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali.

Friday, this the 12 th day of January, 2024

O.S.No.457 of 2022

Palakeerthi Samuel Babu Son of Ankaiah, Hindu, Aged about 25 years, Resident of Guptha Nagar, Ramamurthypet, Kavali Town, SPSR Nellore District. …Plaintif

Vs.,

1. Palakeerthi Prabhudas Son of Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 32years Resident of 9th mile village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Palakeerthi Ashok Son of Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 30 years Resident of ST Colony, (Settlement), Alluru Village & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

3. Devarakonda Prameela Wife of Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Aged about 38 years Resident of Chennarayunipalem V & M, Alluru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

4. Mogili Rani Wife of Raju, Hindu, Aged about 30 years Resident of ST colony (Settlement) Alluru Village & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

....Defendants

This suit is came on 12/01/2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Potluru Srinivasulu, Advocate for the plaintif and the defendants remained exparte and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintif filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and assignees and etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintif over the plaint schedule properties and for costs of the suit.

2 O.S.No.457/2022

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

(a) Originally the plaint schedule property belonged to the Paternal grandfather of the plaintif by name Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah, who is being landless poor, the government allotted the plaint schedule property by way of issuance of D-Form patta to said Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah about 60 years back and since then the said Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by made it fit for cultivation by spending huge amounts.

The D-Form patta issued infavour of said Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah was mispalced in the cyclone but the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah was mutated in all revenue records ie., No.3 Adanagals for fasalies 1397,1399,1401,1402, 1425 and 1427 in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

It is further averred that during the lifetime of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah, being the owner of the plaint schedule properties executed a WILL dated 13/07/2016 in favour of plaintif, in the state of sound and disposing state of mind is legally executed and validly attested, which is his last WILL and thereafter the said Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah died on 13/10/2016. After the death of said Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah, the WILL dt.13/07/2016 is came into force and thus the plaintif is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of WILL and he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. Later the government also issued a land right and enjoyment certificate dt.05/11/2022 in favour of the plaintif in respect of plaint schedule property. The plaintif filed an application before the government for mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of plaint schedule properties. Now the defendants, who having nothing to do with the plaint schedule properties, have no right, title or interest over the same, is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the same with high handedly with political support. The plaintif is a law abiding citizen, unable to resist the high handed acts of the defendants, having no other go, the plaintif constrained to file this suit. Hence the suit.

3 O.S.No.457/2022

3.Upon receipt of summons, the defendants made appearance before the court through their counsel but failed to file their written statement within the statutory period of 90 days and therefore, they were set ex parte on 05/10/2023.

4.On behalf of the plaintif, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A14.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintif.

6.Now the point for determination is:

whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

7.The plaintif filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief reiterated the contents of the plaint. As per the claim of PW.1, he acquired the plaint schedule properties by way of WILL dated 13/07/2016, executed by paternal grandfather of plaintif by name Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah vide Ex.A12, who obtained the same from government by way of D-Form patta. The said

Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah mutated his name in all revenue records and obtained

No.3 andagals in his name vide Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 and later he died on 13/10/2016 vide Ex.A13. After the death of said Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah, plaintif is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of Ex.A12 WILL and later he obtained land right enjoyment certificate dt.05/11/2022 vide Ex.A14 and since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights but the defendant, though he is not having any right, title or interest over the plaint schedule property is trying to obstruct and interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintif over the plaint schedule property and hence he filed this suit for permanent injunction.

8.In a suit for bare injunction, the initial burden lies upon the plaintif to show that he is in lawful possession and peaceful enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit or just prior to it.

4 O.S.No.457/2022

9.To prove the case of the plaintif, the plaintif himself was examined as Pw.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were got marked. Ex.A1 is the No.3 adangal in

S.No.527-2 for the fasali 1427 in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 08/03/2018 issued by the Tahsildar through Mee-Seva. Ex.A2 is No.3 adangal in

S.No.528-19 for the fasali 1425 in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 08/03/2018 issued by the Tahsildar through Mee-Seva. Ex.A3 is the No.3 adangal in S.No.529-5 for the fasali 1425 in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 08/03/2018 issued by the Tahsildar through Mee-Seva. Ex.A4 is the No.3 adangal in S.No.529-6 for the fasali 1427 in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 08/03/2018 issued by the Tahsildar through Mee-Seva. Ex.A5 is the No.3 adangal in S.No.530-7 for the fasali 1425 in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 12/05/2016 issued by the Tahsildar through Mee-Seva. Ex.A6 is the No.3 adangal in S.No.539-4 for the fasali 1425 in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 12/05/2016 issued by the Tahsildar through Mee-Seva. Ex.A7 is the No.3 adangal in S.No.539-7 for the fasali 1427 in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 08/03/2018 issued by the Tahsildar through Mee-Seva. Ex.A8 is the No.3 adangal in S.No.529-5 for the fasali 1397 ( 5 in number) in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti

Kotaiah dated 20/02/2021 obtained by way of RTI Act.Ex.A9 is the No.3 adangal in S.No.529-5 for the fasali 1401 ( 3 in number) in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti

Kotaiah dated 20/02/2021 obtained by way of RTI Act.Ex.A10 is the No.3 adangal in S.No.529-5 for the fasali 1401 ( 3 in number) in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti

Kotaiah dated 20/02/2021 obtained by way of RTI Act. Ex.A11 is the No.3 adangal in S.No.529-5 for the fasali 1404 (4 in number) in the name of

Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 20/02/2021 obtained by way of RTI Act.Ex.A12 is the WILL dated 13/07/2016 executed by Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah in name of plaintif. Ex.A13 is the Death certificate of late Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 13/10/2016 bearing No.100/2017 issued by the Alluru Gramapanchayat, Alluru

Mandal. Ex.A14 is the Land right enjoyment certificate dated 05/11/2022 issued by the VRO, Rudrakota village in favour of plaintif in respect of plaint schedule property.

5 O.S.No.457/2022

10.As already stated above, the defendants have made appearance through their counsel, failed to file written statement within statutory period of 90 days and remained ex parte. Therefore, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintif as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 remained unchallenged.

11.On perusal of Ex.A1 to Ex.A11, No.3 Adangals in favour of paternal grandfather of plaintif by name Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah in respect of the plaint schedule properties clearly show that the said Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties during his lifetime. Further, on perusal of crucial document ie., Ex.A12 WILL clearly shows that the paternal grandfather by name Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah executed a WILL dated 13/07/2016 in favour of plaintif, who is his great grandson in respect of plaint schedule properties due to love and afection.

Further on perusal of Ex.A13 death certificate of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah, shows that the said Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaia died on 13/10/2016.

12.On perusal of the contents in the WILL, the testator by name

Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah signed in Ex.A12 WILL his own free, at the time of execution of WILL the testator had a sound state of mind and also knows he aware of the nature and efect and hence the testator complied statutory compliance under Section 63 of Succession Act. Moreover it is settled law to prove the execution of WILL “ The burden of proof of execution of WILL as also the suspicious circumstances attached to execution of such WILL always lies on the propounder of the WILL who has to prove the due execution of WILL and remove the suspicious circumstances from the mind of the court by cogent and satisfactory evidence”. In this regard, the plaintif as PW.1 examined 2nd attestor of Ex.A12 WILL namely Lalam Venkata Rao as PW.2, who filed his examination in chief affidavit by stating that originlaly the plaint schedule properties are C.J.F.S lands and later the parental grandfather of plaintif by name Palakeerthi Kanti

Kotaiah acquired the same from government by way of D-form patta and being owner of the same, he executed a WILL dated 13/07/2016 in favour of plaintif 6 O.S.No.457/2022 due to love and afection with sound and disposing state of mind. He further deposed that by the date of execution of WILL, himself, testator by name

Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah, and 1st attestor namely K.Malyadri and the entire transaction took place in his presence. Further, the alleged WILL dated 13/07/2016 did not challenged by any one including defendants.

13.On perusal of Ex.A13, the testator of WILL by name Palakeerthi

Kanti Kotaiah died on 13/10/2016. After death of said Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah, the WILL dt.13/10/2016 executed by him, the alleged WILL is come into force and the plaintif is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties, which are mentioned in the WILL. Moreover, as per Ex.A14, the plaintif obtained land right enjoyment certificate dt.05/11/2022, issued by VRO, Rudrakota clearly establishes that the plaintif has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties as on the date of filing of the suit.

14. In the light of above facts and circumstances, this court holds that the plaintif, who is legally entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for.

Accordingly, this point is answered accordingly.

15.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and defendants, their men, agents and assignees etc., are hereby restrained by means of permanent injunction in any way from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 12th day of January, 2024.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kavali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

Pw.1:Palakeerthi Samuel Babu -Exparte- Pw.2:Lalam Venakta Rao 7 O.S.No.457/2022

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1 :No.3 adangal in S.No.527-2 for the fasali 1427 in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 08/03/2018 issued by the Tahsildar through Mee-Seva Ex.A2 :No.3 adangal in S.No.528-19 for the fasali 1425 in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 08/03/2018 issued by the Tahsildar through Mee-Seva Ex.A3 :No.3 adangal in S.No.529-5 for the fasali 1425 in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 08/03/2018 issued by the Tahsildar through Mee-Seva Ex.A4 :No.3 adangal in S.No.529-6 for the fasali 1427 in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 08/03/2018 issued by the Tahsildar through Mee-Seva Ex.A5 :No.3 adangal in S.No.530-7 for the fasali 1425 in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 12/05/2016 issued by the Tahsildar through Mee-Seva Ex.A6 :No.3 adangal in S.No.539-4 for the fasali 1425 in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 12/05/2016 issued by the Tahsildar through Mee-Seva Ex.A7 :No.3 adangal in S.No.539-7 for the fasali 1427 in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 08/03/2018 issued by the Tahsildar through Mee-Seva Ex.A8 :No.3 adangal in S.No.529-5 for the fasali 1397 ( 5 in number) in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 20/02/2021 obtained by way of RTI Act. Ex.A9 :No.3 adangal in S.No.529-5 for the fasali 1399 ( 3 in number) in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 20/02/2021 obtained by way of RTI Act. Ex.A10 :No.3 adangal in S.No.529-5 for the fasali 1401 ( 3 in number) in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 20/02/2021 obtained by way of RTI Act. Ex.A11 :No.3 adangal in S.No.529-5 for the fasali 1404 (4 in number) in the name of Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 20/02/2021 obtained by way of RTI Act. Ex.A12 :WILL dated 13/07/2016 executed by Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah in name of plaintif Ex.A13 :Death certificate of late Palakeerthi Kanti Kotaiah dated 13/10/2016 bearing No.100/2017 issued by the Alluru Gramapanchayat, Alluru Mandal Ex.A14 :Land right enjoyment certificate dated 05/11/2022 issued by the VRO, Rudrakota village in favour of plaintif in respect of plaint schedule property.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:-

-NIL-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kavali.

OS/22/2023

SHAIK CHINA HUSSAIN SAHEB vs SHAIK MASTHAN SAHEB, ALIAS ANNAGARIPALLEM MASTHAN, ALIAS PEDDAYANA

05 Jan 2024

1 O.S.No.22/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAVALI

Present :Rokkam Varalakshmi

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali.

Friday, this the 05 th day of January, 2024

O.S.No.22 of 2023

Shaik China Hussain Saheb son of Chiniki Saheb, Muslim, Aged about 78 years, Resident of Mixed Colony, Jammalapalem Village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. …Plaintif

Vs.,

Shaik Masthan Saheb @ Annagaripalem Masthan @ Peddayanna son of Meera Saheb, Muslim, Aged about 58 years, Resident of Mixed Colony, Jammalapalem Village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

....Defendant

This suit is came on 03/01/2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Potluru Srinivasulu, Advocate for the plaintif and the defendant remained exparte and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintif filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and assignees and etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintif over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

(a) The plaintif purchased the plaint schedule property from his vendor namely Gunji Venkatamma under a registered sale deed dt.07/08/2006 for valuable consideration of Rs.21,500/- and since then the plaintif has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and thereafter he obtained all revenue records stands in his name by mutating his name ie., No.3 Adangals, 1-

B Namuna and etc., through Tahsildar, Jaladanki. The Encumbrance Certificate dt.08/12/2022 shows in the name of plaintif in respect plaint schedule property.

and accordingly, the plaintif is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

2 O.S.No.22/2023

(b) It is further averred that recently the defendant trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the plaint schedule property though he is not having any right, title or interest over the same with high handed acts and political influence. The plaintif being a law abiding citizen, unable to resist the high handed illegal acts of the defendant as he is having large following and political strength in the village. Having no other go, the plaintif constrained to file this suit. Hence the suit.

3.Upon receipt of summons, the defendant made appearance before the court through his counsel but failed to file his written statement within the statutory period of 90 days and therefore, he was set ex parte on 12/12/2023.

4.On behalf of the plaintif, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A4.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintif.

6.Now the point for determination is:

whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

7.The plaintif filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief reiterated the contents of the plaint. As per the claim of PW.1, he purchased the plaint schedule property from his vendor namely Gunji Venkatamma vide Ex.A1 and also obtained No.3 Adangal for fasali 1432 and 1-B Namuna in his favour vide Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 and since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights but the defendant, though he is not having any right, title or interest over the plaint schedule property is trying to obstruct and interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintif over the plaint schedule property and hence he filed this suit for permanent injunction.

3 O.S.No.22/2023

9.To prove the case of the plaintif, the plaintif himself was examined as Pw.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were got marked. Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of

Venktamma in respect of plaint schedule property. Ex.A2 is the No.3 Adangal for fasali 1432 dt.23/12/2022 in favour of plaintif in respect of plaint schedule property obtained through mee-Seva. Ex.A3 is the 1-B Namuna dt.23/12/2022 in favour of plaintif in respect of plaint schedule property obtained through mee-

Seva. Ex.A4 is the Encumbrance Certificate in favour of plaintif in respect of plaint schedule property.

10.As already stated above, the defendant has made appearance through his counsel, failed to file written statement within statutory period of 90 days and remained ex parte. Therefore, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintif as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 remained unchallenged.

11.A perusal of Ex.A1 Certified copy of Registered sale deed dt.07/08/2006, it clearly shows that plaintif purchased the plaint schedule property from his vendor namely Gunji Venkatamma for valuable consideration of Rs. Rs.21,500/-. Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 ie. No.3 Adangal and 1-B Namuna clearly shows that the name of the plaintif shown as possessor of the plaint schedule property. Further, on perusal of Ex.A4 clearly shows the name of the plaintif shown as Claimant, which is clearly establishes the plaintif is the absolute owner and has been in peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

12.To support the case of the plaintif, he examined one Settipalli

Malakondaiah, who is the third party to the suit proceedings as PW.2 who filed his examination in chief affidavit by stating that the plaintif purchased the plaint schedule property from one Gunji Venkatamma under a registered sale deed dt.07/2006 for valuable consideration of Rs.21,500/- and ever since he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and thereafter he obtained all revenue records from Thasildar, Jaladanki by mutating his name in respect of the plaint schedule property and thus the plaintif is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.

4 O.S.No.22/2023

13. In the light of above facts and circumstances, this court holds that the plaintif, who is legally entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for.

Accordingly, this point is answered accordingly.

14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and defendant, his men, agents and assignees etc., are hereby restrained by means of permanent injunction in any way from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 05th day of December, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kavali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

Pw.1:Shaik China Hussain Saheb -Exparte- Pw.2:Settipalli Malakondaiah

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Register sale deed dt.07/08/2006 in favour of plaintif executed by one Gunji Venktamma in respect of plaint schedule property.

Ex.A2: No.3 Adangal for fasali 1432 dt.23/12/2022 in favour of plaintif in respect of plaint schedule property obtained through mee-Seva.

Ex.A3: 1-B Namuna dt.23/12/2022 in favour of plaintif in respect of plaint schedule property obtained through mee-Seva.

Ex.A4: Encumbrance Certificate in favour of plaintif in respect of plaint schedule property.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:-

-NIL-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kavali.

OS/136/2023

ANDHRA PRAGATHI GRAMEEN BANK vs GURRAM VENKATA SESHAIAH

09 Jan 2024

1 O.S.No.136/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAVALI

Present : Rokkam Varalakshmi

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali.

Tuesday, this the 09th day of January, 2024

O.S.No.136 of 2023

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, a body Corporate Constituted under the Regional Rural Banking Act of 1976 having its Head Office at Kadapa and a Branch Offices amongst other places at Kavali, SPSR Nellore District, rep. By its Branch Manager, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District.

… Plaintif Vs.,

1. Gurram Venkata Seshaiah son of Chimpiraiah, Hindu, Aged about 62 years

2. Gurram Praveen Babu son of Venkata Seshaiah Hindu, Aged about 40 years,

Both are residents of Lingaraju Agraharam village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

....Defendants

This suit is came on 09/01/2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Venugopal Reddy, Advocate for the plaintif bank and the defendants remained exparte and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintif bank against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,41,228/- on the foot of Agreement for Agricultrual

Advances dated 30/10/2018.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The plaintif-bank is a body Corporate constituted under under the

Regional Rural Banking Act of 1976 having its Head Office at Kadapa and a

Branch Offices amongst other places at Kavali Branch, SPSR Nellore District.

The 1st defendant availed agricultural(crop) loan for Rs.2,00,000/- from plaintif bank on 30/10/2018 for raising crop under loan account (PKCC) No.91062934533 repayable with interest at 7% per annum with yearly rests or such other rates as may fixed by the bank from time to time as per the Reserve Bank of India norms and the present rate of interest is 15.5 % per annum and accordingly, the 2 O.S.No.136/2023 1st defendant executed Agreement for Agricultural Advances on the same day ie., 30/10/2018 and 2nd defendant stood as guarantor to 1st defendant and also executed Gurantee agreement on 30/10/2018 in favour of the plaintif bank.

Thereafter, the 1st defendant is not regular in payment of loan instalments and committed default. After repeated demands, the 1st defendant executed a acknowledgment of debt dt.07/07/2021 in favour of palinif bank. Later in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif bank and issuance of legal notices dt.18/06/2022, the defendants failed to discharge the loan amount. Since the plaintif bank is nationalized bank, the defendants are not entitled to get any benefits under any of the Debt Relief Laws and thus the interest is claimed as per the rules of Reserve Bank of India . Hence the suit.

3.Despite service of summon, the defendants 1 and 2 failed to appear before the court and failed to contest the suit and therefore, they were set ex parte on 22/12/2023.

4.On behalf of the plaintif bank, Pw.1 was examined and got marked

Exs.A1 to A6.

5.Heard counsel for the plaintif bank .

6.Now the point for determination is

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of

Rs.3,41,228/- from the defendants with future interest and costs?

7. Admittedly, the plaintif bank filed the above suit against the defendants for recovery of money on the foot of Agreement for Agricultural

Advances dt.30/10/2018 execued by 1st defendant in favour of plaintif bank. It is a settled proposition of law that in a suit for recovery of money, the initial burden of proof lies upon the plaintif to prove that the 1st defendant has executed loan agreement dt.30/10/2028 and also 2nd defendant stood as guarantor to the 1st defendant and on that he executed deed of guarantee dt.30/10/2018 of the debt of 1st defendant in favour of the plaintif bank and then only a presumption under section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be raised to the efect that the said documents are supported by consideration.

3 O.S.No.136/2023

8. To discharge the initial burden, the Branch Manager of plaintif Bank entered into witness box as Pw.1 and his evidence in the chief examination affidavit is nothing but replica of contents of the plaint. Through Pw.1, Exs.A1 to

A6 were got marked. Ex.A1 is the Agreement for Agricultural Advances dt.30/10/2018 execued by 1st defendant in favour of plaintif bank. Ex.A2 is the

Guarantee agreement dt.30/10/2018 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of plaintif bank. Ex.A3 is the Acknowledgment of debt dated 07/07/2021 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintif bank. Ex.A4 is the Office copy of legal notice dt.18/06/2022. Ex.A5 is the postal acknowledgments from the defendants 1 and 2 dt.30/04/2022. Ex.A6 is the Ledger extract dt.16/11/2022.

9.As already stated above, the defendants despite of service of summons, failed to appear the court and failed to contest the suit and remained ex parte. Consequently the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintif in the shape of Pw.1 and Exs.A1 to A6 remained unchallenged. Upon perusal of entire material available on record, it is unambiguously clear that the 1st defendant had availed a agricultrual (crop) loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor for the same, is not regular in payment of loan instalments and failed to discharge the debt inspite of repeated demands, hence, the plaintif Bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants with future interest and costs. This point is answered accordingly.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.3,41,228/- to the plaintif bank with subsequent interest at 15.5% per annum on principal amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 09th day of January, 2024.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kavali.

4 O.S.No.136/2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

Pw.1:Padma Lochan Sethy, Branch -Exparte- Manager, APGB, Kavali Main Branch.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1: Agreement for Agricultural Advances dt.30/10/2018 execued by 1st defendant in favour of plaintif bank. Ex.A2: Guarantee agreement dt.30/10/2018 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of plaintif bank. Ex.A3: Acknowledgment of debt dated 07/07/2021 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintif bank. Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice dt.18/06/2022. Ex.A5: postal acknowledgments from the defendants 1 and 2 Ex.A6: Ledger extract dt.16/11/2022.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:-

-NIL-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kavali.

OS/171/2023

STATE BANK OF INDIA BRANCH MANAGER vs POKURI BIBI

05 Jan 2024

1/4 O.S.No.171 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAVALI

Present :Rokkam Varalakshmi

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali.

Friday, this the 05th (Fifth) day of January, 2024

O.S.No.171 of 2023

Between:

M/s. State Bank of India, a body Corporate Constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having its Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Mumbai – 400 021 and its branch among other place at Chinna Annaluru Village, SPSR Nellore District. Rep. by its Branch Manager. …Plaintif. And:

1 Pokuri Bibi wife of Malakondaiah, Hindu, Aged about 57 years, Resident of Battuvari palem, Gangireddy Palem post, Chinna Annaluru Village, Kaligiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2 Vemulapati Chandraiah son of Lakshmaiah, Hindu, Aged about 65 years, Resident of Battuvari palem, Gangireddy Palem post, Chinna Annaluru Village, Kaligiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

…Defendants.

This suit came before me on 05/01/2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Babu Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the defendants having been called absent and set ex parte, and upon perusing the entire material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of a sum of

Rs.1,20,344/- on the foot of agreement of hypothecation dated 16/07/2018.

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

(a)The plaintiff-bank is a body Corporation constituted under State Bank of India Act, 1955 having one of its branch at Chinna Annaluru Village,. The 1st defendant approached the plaintiff bank for obtaining a loan for her small business cagetogry (B) and availed loan of Rs.1,66,000/- on 16/07/2018 under loan bearing account No.37814448581 and accordingly the 1st defendant had executed

Hypothecation agreement on the same day ie., on 16/07/2018 and hypothecated 2/4 O.S.No.171 of 2023 the stocks for her business activity and also executed letter of agreemnt on the same day along with guarantor details, agreeing to pay interest on the loan will be charged at 9.8% pa.a as per the bank rules. The 2nd defendant stood as gurarantor of 1st defendant for loan amount and executed guarantee agreemenrt on 16/07/2018. Thereafter the defendants failed to repay the loan amount even in spite of repeated demands, the defendants failed to discharge the loan even issuance of demand notices and finally on 20/11/2022. As on 31/03/2023, the defendants is due a sum of Rs.1,20,344/-. As the loan transaction is of commercial in nature and therefore they are not entitled to get any benefits under any of the

Debt Relief Laws. Hence the suit.

3.Despite service of summons, the defendants failed to appear before the court and failed to contest the suit and therefore, they were set ex parte on 05/09/2023.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, Pw.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were got marked.

5.Heard arguments on behalf of the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintif bank is entitled to recover a sum of

Rs.1,20,344/- from the defendant with future interest and

costs?

7.POINT: Admittedly, the plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendants for recovery of money on the foot of agreement of loan cum hypothecation. It is a settled proposition of law that in a suit for recovery of money, the initial burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff to prove that the 1st defendant hss executed the letter of arrangement, agreement of loan cum hypothecation in favour of the plaintiff and 2nd defendant beuing a guarantor of 1st defendant executed Deed of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff bank and then only a presumption under section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be raised to the effect that the said documents are supported by consideration.

8.To discharge the initial burden, the Manager of plaintiff Bank entered into witness box as Pw.1 and her evidence in the chief examination affidavit is nothing but replica of contents of the plaint. Through Pw.1, Exs.A1 to A6 were got marked. Ex.A1 is the Application form for small business (Category-B), Ex.A2 is the 3/4 O.S.No.171 of 2023

Interview cum Assessment form dt.16/07/2018. Ex.A3 is teh Hypothecation agreement dt.16/07/2018. Ex.A4 is the Letter of agreement. Ex.A5 is the Deed of guarantee by the 2nd defendant. Ex.A6 is the Demand notices dt.10/06/2019, 18/07/2019, 12/10/2019, 16/01/2020 and 21/11/2022. Ex.A7 is the outstanding amount due from the defendant as per ledger extract copy. As already stated above, the defendants despite service of summons, failed to appear the court and failed to contest the suit and remained ex parte. Consequently the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff in the shape of Pw.1 and Exs.A1 to

A6 remained unchallenged. Upon perusal of entire material available on record, it is unambiguously clear that the 1st defendant having availed a loan of Rs.1,66,000/- and 2nd defendant stood as guarantor of 1st defendant and later committed default, they failed to discharge the entire debt in spite of repeated demands and hence, the plaintiff Bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants with future interest and costs. This point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the defendants 1 and 2 are be and hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,344/- to the plaintiff bank with future interest at 11.80% per annum on Rs.1,20,344/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realisation.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 05th day of January 2024.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kavali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

For Plaintif: For Defendants:

P.W.1 :P.Krishna Priya Ex parte.

Documents marked on behalf of plaintif:

Ex.A1: Application form for small business (Category-B),

Ex.A2: Interview cum Assessment form dt.16/07/2018.

Ex.A3: Hypothecation agreement dt.16/07/2018.

Ex.A4: Letter of agreement.

4/4 O.S.No.171 of 2023

Ex.A5: Deed of guarantee by the 2nd defendant.

Ex.A6: Demand notices dt.10/06/2019, 18/07/2019, 12/10/2019, 16/01/2020 and 21/11/2022.

Ex.A7: Outstanding amount due from the defendant as per ledger extract copy.

Documents marked on behalf of defendant:

NIL.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kavali.

OS/311/2023

Thotpalli Suresh, vs Veerla Srinivasulu

04 Jan 2024

1 O.S.No.311/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAVALI

Present :Rokkam Varalakshmi

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali.

Thursday, this the 04th (Fourth) day of January, 2024

O.S.No.311 of 2023

Thotapalli Suresh son of Gopalaiah, Hindu, Aged about 62 years, Near MPP School, Bogole Bitragunta, Bogole Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. …Plaintif Vs.,

1. Veerala Srinivasulu son of Audi Seshaiah, Hindu, Aged about 64 years,

2. Veerala Savithri wife of Veerala Srinivasulu, Hindu Aged about 56 years,

Both are Resident of Near Milk Society, Raja Street, Bogole Bitragunta, Bogole Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

....Defendants

This suit is came on 04/01/2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Nagendra Babu, Advocate for the plaintif and the defendants remained exparte and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintif filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,71,666/- being the principal and interest basing on the promissory note dt.06/06/2021 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 jointly, claiming future interest and costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The defendants 1 and 2 jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintif on 06/06/2021 and in consideration thereof, they jointly executed promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintif or to his 2 O.S.No.311/2023 order on demand. Thereafter, the defendants failed to repay the amount due inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif and issuance of legal notice dt.06/04/2023 but they refused to receive the same and neither comply the same nor pay the amount due under the suit promissory note. The defendants ares not an agriculturists and therefore, they are not entitled to get any benefits under any of the Debt Relief Laws. Hence the suit.

3.Despite service of summons, the defendants failed to appear

before the court and failed to contest the suit and therefore, they were set ex

parte on 29/12/2023.

4. On behalf of the plaintif, Pw.1 was examined and got marked

Exs.A1 to Ex.A3.

5.Heard counsel for the plaintif.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the

defendants with future interest and costs?

7.The plaintif is examined as Pw.1. The plaintif filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief reiterated the contents of the plaint with regard to the borrowal the amount from plaintif and execution of Ex.A1 promissory note.

The plaintif got exhibited Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the promissory note, dated 06/06/2021 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintif. Ex.A2 is the Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A3 is the Postal receipt covers from the defendant. The plaintif in his plaint pleaded that inspite of repeated demands made by him, the defendants have failed to discharge the debt. The said fact was not denied by the defendants. As already stated above, the defendants having received summons, failed to appear before the court and remained ex-parte. The evidence of Pw.1 is remained unchallenged. When the defendants have failed to challenge the evidence of Pw.1, this court believes the same as true and correct. The plaintif by examining himself as Pw.1 by exhibiting Ex.A1 proved that the defendants jointly borrowed amount from him and they have failed to repay the amount. When the defendants failed to repay 3 O.S.No.311/2023 the suit amount, the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from them.

Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the defendants 1 and 2 are be and hereby directed to jointly pay a sum of Rs.7,71,666/- to plaintif with future interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum on principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- till the date of realisation.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 04th day of January 2024.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kavali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

Pw.1:Thotapalli Suresh -Exparte-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1: Promissory note, dated 06/06/2021 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintif.

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice

Ex.A3: Refusal postal covers from the defendants

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:-

-NIL-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kavali.

Order Record 73 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/457/2022	PALAKEERTHI SAMUEL BABU vs PALAKEERTHI PRABHUDAS	12 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/136/2023	ANDHRA PRAGATHI GRAMEEN BANK vs GURRAM VENKATA SESHAIAH	09 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/22/2023	SHAIK CHINA HUSSAIN SAHEB vs SHAIK MASTHAN SAHEB, ALIAS ANNAGARIPALLEM MASTHAN, ALIAS PEDDAYANA	05 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/171/2023	STATE BANK OF INDIA BRANCH MANAGER vs POKURI BIBI	05 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/311/2023	Thotpalli Suresh, vs Veerla Srinivasulu	04 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/85/2023	NALADALA SUDHAKAR RAO vs SHAIK KHAJA NAYAB RASOOL	03 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/77/2017	Machavarapu Samba Siva Rao vs Somaiahgari Nageswara Rao	02 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/366/2022	GUNDEBOINA VASANTHA vs ANNANGI MAHESH	02 Jan 2024	Judgement	—
OS/19/2023	RAGURU MALYADRI vs UPPU PADMANABHAM	30 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/106/2022	Mamillapalli Audi Lakshamma vs Abburi Dhanamma	30 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/342/2022	Dama Chandra Babu Naidu vs Kandra Srinivasulu	30 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/283/2022	Mattepu Malakondaiah vs Mattepu Malakondaiah	13 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/158/2023	KATAM VENKATARATNAMMA vs KOTA VENKATA SUBBAMMA	11 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/427/2022	BANDARU DAYAKAR REDDY vs NARE MURALI	11 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/62/2023	VALLETI RAGHAVENDRA RAO vs BOLIGERLA HAZARATHAIAH	10 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/137/2022	Kuttuboina Mallaiah vs Pallapu Ramanaiah	10 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/312/2022	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Kaligiri Branch vs Chittiboyina Vijayamma	10 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/4/2023	BODAPATI INDIRAMMA vs PULLA CHALAPATHI	06 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/25/2020	Chereddy Venkateswarlu Reddy vs Panthangi Rajamma	06 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/43/2020	Gadde Ravindra vs Ambati Venkata Prasad	06 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/98/2023	YAKKALA VIJAYALAKSHMI vs PULLA CHALAPATHI ALIAS CHALAPATHI REDDY	05 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/398/2022	ANDHRA PRAGATHI GRAMEENA BANK,KONDAPURAM BRANCH,REP.BY BRANCH MANAGER vs PATIBANDLA AUDILAKSHAMMA	04 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/139/2023	ANDHRAPRAGATHI GRAMEENA BANK vs GIURRAM AUDILAKASHMI	03 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/214/2020	Makke Hazarathaiah vs Pokuru Malyadri	03 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/59/2022	Maddiboina Padma vs Shaik Khaleel	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/71/2021	DAVANAM MANI KUMAR vs SADINENI RAMA ROA	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/90/2022	Oruganti Malakondaiah vs Modepalli Vengaiah	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/132/2021	Bhaskaruni Badari Narayana vs Pachipulusu Kalpana	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/294/2021	Pallapu Srinivasulu vs Md. Kareem (Died)	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/365/2022	RAYANI SREENU vs RAYANI PRASAD	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/121/2017	THATAVARTHI MAHESWAR vs DAGADA DEVI SANKARA PRASAD REDDY	27 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/156/2023	ANDHRA PRAGATHI GRAMEENA BANK vs GOLLA SUPRIYA	27 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/429/2022	GUMMALAMPATI SRINIVASULU vs MULI VENGALA REDDY	27 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/175/2020	CHINRTHAMREDDY VENKATA SUBBA REDDY vs PULLA CHINA VEMAIAH	26 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/188/2021	Vonteru Lakshmi Narasa Reddy vs Kurapati Venka Reddy	26 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/126/2020	Union Bank if Ibndia vs Darla Yedukondalu	22 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/198/2020	union bank of india vs Bontha Venkata Ramaiah	22 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/288/2022	M/s. Union Bank of India, Toorpu Yerraballi Branch vs Chennuboina Narasimha Rao	22 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/475/2022	CHIMMILI PRASANTHI vs BILLA KRISHNA ALIAS KRISHNAIAH	21 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/353/2019	Pokuru Prabhakar vs Appasamudram Subrahmanya Achari	08 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/126/2023	PUNURU BHASKAR REDDY vs ATHMAKURU SESHAMMA	04 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/214/2019	Chenupatti Siva Krishna vs Bandla Abraham	04 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/7/2023	VANGAVARAPU PRASANNA LAKSHMI vs NIL	31 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/142/2022	Murahari Raghavendra vs Gochipathala Lakshmi	31 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/173/2021	Valleti Venkateswarlu vs Challa Venu	31 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/358/2021	Kakani Malyadri vs Gochipathala Venkata Krishnaiah	31 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/12/2021	NUSETTY MALLIKARJUNA vs CHAPALA GANGADHARUDU	29 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/264/2021	Canara Bank Kaligiri Branch vs Muli Maliyadri	29 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/489/2001	j2MjyZ2KRpTCmiW46Idox7X2HQOzvhdkDMtgmkAbfBY= vs VskGPBt6Qr3whkVgxtVcU9fbNbQ+XE88DGZxVTRY7lPQU=	29 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/322/2022	Arava Sai Krishna vs Puli Subrahmanyam Reddy	28 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/272/2020	KULLAMGARU VENKATESWARLU vs GOLLA CHINA THIRUPATHI	25 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/284/2022	Gattamaneni Audilakshamma vs Pobbaraju China Malakondaiah	25 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/292/2020	DEVARAPALLI MALYDRI REDDY vs VEERALA THIRUPATHI	24 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/34/2021	UNION BANK OF INDIA vs LAGADAPATI NARASIMHULU NAIDU	22 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/79/2013	XXXXX vs XXXXX	22 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/247/2020	Union Bank of India vs Darla gopi	22 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/199/2020	union bank of india vs Vschittabathina ankamma	21 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/242/2020	union bank of india vs Vspamuluri Malyadir	21 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/165/2020	syndicate Bank vs Dasari Balachandar	18 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/251/2021	Gangineni Venu vs Suram Audinarayana Reddy	18 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/117/2017	Perram Nagi Reddy vs Shaik Shakeela	10 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/274/2021	Bhaskaruni Badari Narayana vs Pachipulusu Kalpana	07 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
EP/1/2022	Puli Yanadaiah vs Jedda Peda Venkateswarlu	01 Aug 2023	Order	—
OS/154/2022	Canara Bank, Kaligiri Branch vs Malepati Venkata Suresh Babu	01 Aug 2023	Judgement	—
OS/26/2021	KALAVAKURI SATYANARAYANA vs YETURI RAMAIAH	31 Jul 2023	Judgement	—
OS/246/2021	Canara Ban Kaligiri Branch vs Nanda Ankamma	31 Jul 2023	Judgement	—
OS/71/2022	Tanneru janardhan vs Tanneru Malyadri	26 Jul 2023	Judgement	—
OS/222/2021	Mekala Ramanaiah vs Sadineni Mastan	18 Jul 2023	Judgement	—
OS/54/2015	Mandadi Kanthamma vs Mandadi Krishna	28 Jun 2023	Judgement	—
OS/472/2022	CHITTARU NARASIMHA RAO vs LAKKAMRAJU SRINIVASA RAJU	28 Jun 2023	Judgement	—
OS/249/2020	meka satish babu vs Natakarani Manjula	23 Jun 2023	Judgement	—
OS/113/2017	XXXXX vs XXXXX	19 May 2023	Judgement	—
OS/3/2021	kakani Malyadri vs Pallala Srinivasulu	11 May 2023	Judgement	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jan 2024		8
Oct 2023		16
Sep 2023		18
Aug 2023		22
Jul 2023		4
Jun 2023		3
May 2023		2

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Kum R. Varalakshmi handled?

Kum R. Varalakshmi has handled 73 court orders since 2023 at Prl.Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Kavali (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 9 orders per month.

What types of cases does Kum R. Varalakshmi hear?

Based on available records, Kum R. Varalakshmi primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Prl.Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Kavali (Taluka).

Where is Kum R. Varalakshmi currently posted?

Kum R. Varalakshmi is posted as PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE at Prl.Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Kavali (Taluka), Nellore, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Kum R. Varalakshmi available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Kum R. Varalakshmi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Kum R. Varalakshmi dispose cases?

Kum R. Varalakshmi disposes approximately 9 cases per month, based on 73 orders handled over their tenure at Prl.Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Kavali (Taluka).

Since when is Kum R. Varalakshmi serving?

Kum R. Varalakshmi has been serving at Prl.Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Kavali (Taluka) since 2023.

Case Types

OS 99%

EP 1%

Posting History

May 2023 — Jan 2024

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 73 orders
May 2023 — Jan 2024

Addl. Judicial Magistriate of Ist class

Other Judges at this Court

Sri.E.Sudhakar Rao

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

225 orders

Sri G. Vikram Sinha

Addl. Judicial Magistriate of Ist class

98 orders

← View all judges at Prl.Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Kavali (Taluka)