Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Senior Civil Judge Chodavaram · Visakapatnam · Andhra Pradesh
Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, is posted at Senior Civil Judge Chodavaram, Visakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,011 court orders on record since 2017. 44 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, CRLMP cases.
Featured Judgments
Date of Presentation: 28-04-2016
Date of Filing: 28-4-2016
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wedneday, this the 28 th day of June, 2017
HMOP.NO.27/2016
Between: Vissa Geetha Lakshmi devi, W/o Vissa Raghuram, Hindu, age 26 years, presently residing at C/o Mukku Srinivasa Rao, MIG-2, Plot No.13, Door No.7-79, NGGO’s colony, Kothuru village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner And:
Vissa Raghuram, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 30 years, residing at SC Railway Quarters, T-4/3, Souser, Chinduwada District, Madhya Pradesh-480 106.
Respondent
Petition filed under Sec.13(1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner (wife) against the respondent (husband )for grant of divorce by dissolving the marriage abetween them held on 14.02.2014 and for other reliefs.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 is paid under Art.I (vii) Sch.II of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri B.V.Satyanarayana and Sri M.V.Reddy Naidu Advocates for petitioner and of Sri S.S.V.Bhaskar and S.Srinivas,Advocates for Respondent.
Both parties called present Petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition.
Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly petition is dismissed as not pressed and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 28th day of
August,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wedneday, this the 28 th day of June, 2017
HMOP.NO.27/2016
Between: Vissa Geetha Lakshmi devi, W/o Vissa Raghuram, Hindu, age 26 years, presently residing at C/o Mukku Srinivasa Rao, MIG-2, Plot No.13, Door No.7-79, NGGO’s colony, Kothuru village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner And:
Vissa Raghuram, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 30 years, residing at SC Railway Quarters, T-4/3, Souser, Chinduwada District, Madhya Pradesh-480 106.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.V.Satyanarayana and Sri M.V.Reddy Naidu Advocates for petitioner and of Sri S.S.V.Bhaskar and S.Srinivas,Advocates for Respondent. Both parties called present Petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly petition is dismissed as not pressed and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.13(1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner (wife) against the respondent (husband )for grant of divorce by dissolving the marriage abetween them held on 14.02.2014 and for other reliefs.
Both parties called present. Petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition.
Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of
Presentation:3.6.15/17.06.2015
Date of Filing: 22.06.2015
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Monday, this the 28 th day of August, 2017
HMOP.NO.42/2015
Between: Chandanti Sreenivasa Rao S/o Appa Rao, age 35 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of D.No.5-6, Narayudupalem village, Munagapaka Mandal, Vsisakhapatnam District.
Petitioner And:
Chandanati Ammaji W/o Sreenivasa Rao, D/o KarriMahalakshmi, Hindu, coolie, resident of D.No.3-5, Edalapaka Bonangi village, Parawada Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District.
Respondent
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act. This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent (a )for restitution of conjugal rights of the petitioner with the respondent and for costs of the petition.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00is paid under Art.I (vii) Sch.II of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri C.Sivaiah, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar,
Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent No representation on either side. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 28th day of
August,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Monday, this the 28 th day of August, 2017
HMOP.NO.42/2015
Between: Chandanti Sreenivasa Rao S/o Appa Rao, age 35 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of D.No.5-6, Narayudupalem village, Munagapaka Mandal, Vsisakhapatnam District.
Petitioner And:
Chandanati Ammaji W/o Sreenivasa Rao, D/o KarriMahalakshmi, Hindu, coolie, resident of D.No.3-5, Edalapaka Bonangi village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Sivaiah, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent No representation on either side. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent (a )for restitution of conjugal rights of the petitioner with the respondent and for costs of the petition.
Bothparties called absent No representation on either side . The petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of August, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 22nd day of September, 2017
SOP.No.23/2017 Between:
1) Smt.Pentakota Paradesamma, W/o late Venkata Ramana, Hindu, age 64 years, house hold duties, residing at Munagapaka village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Smt. Bheesetti Padma, W/o Venkata Rama Rao, Hindu, age 38 years, house hold duties, residing at Allipuram, Visakhapatnam. Petitioners. And:
NIL Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri L.Jagannadham and Sri Parvateeswar, Advocates for Petitioners. Both parties called absent no representation on either side and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition U/Section 372 of Indian Succession Act filed by the petitioners. Legal haeirs of the deceased Pentakota Venkata Ramana, prays to issue Succession certificate in favour of 1st petitioner herein for enabling her to recover the decretal amount of Rs.32,872/- in O.S.70/87 on the file of
Prl.Districtl Munsif’s Court, Anakapalli as smentioned in thek schedule from out of the Assets of Karri Sri Rama Murthy, S/o Ramulu ( defendant in the above mentioned suit) lying iln the hands dof the Legal heirs of the deceased Sri
Ramak Murthy and lpass such other relief or reliefs as your Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Paper publication is not filed both parties called absent No representation on either side. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of September, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 06.04.2017 Date of Filing: 06.04.2017
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 22nd day of September, 2017
SOP.No.23/2017 Between:
1) Smt.Pentakota Paradesamma, W/o late Venkata Ramana, Hindu, age 64 years, house hold duties, residing at Munagapaka village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Smt. Bheesetti Padma, W/o Venkata Rama Rao, Hindu, age 38 years, house hold duties, residing at Allipuram, Visakhapatnam. Petitioners. And:
NIL Respondants.
This is a petition U/Section 372 of Indian Succession Act filed by the petitioners. Legal haeirs of the deceased Pentakota Venkata Ramana, prays to issue Succession certificate in favour of 1st petitioner herein for enabling her to recover the decretal amount of Rs.32,872/- in O.S.70/87 on the file of
Prl.Districtl Munsif’s Court, Anakapalli as smentioned in thek schedule from out of the Assetss of Karri Sri Rama Murthy, S/o Ramulu ( defendant in the above mentioned suit) lying iln the hands dof the Legal heirs of the deceased Sri
Ramak Murthy and lpass such other relief or reliefs as your Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 is paid under Arl7 Sch.I of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri L.Jagannadham and Sri Parvateeswar, Advocates for Petitioners.
Both parties called absent no representation on either side and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of petition schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 22nd day of
September, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONERs: FOR RESPONDENTs;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 22nd day of September, 2017
SOP.No.23/2017 Between:
1) Smt.Pentakota Paradesamma, W/o late Venkata Ramana, Hindu, age 64 years, house hold duties, residing at Munagapaka village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Smt. Bheesetti Padma, W/o Venkata Rama Rao, Hindu, age 38 years, house hold duties, residing at Allipuram, Visakhapatnam. Petitioners. And:
NIL Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri L.Jagannadham and Sri Parvateeswar, Advocates for Petitioners. Both parties called absent no representation on either side and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition U/Section 372 of Indian Succession Act filed by the petitioners. Legal haeirs of the deceased Pentakota Venkata Ramana, prays to issue Succession certificate in favour of 1st petitioner herein for enabling her to recover the decretal amount of Rs.32,872/- in O.S.70/87 on the file of
Prl.Districtl Munsif’s Court, Anakapalli as smentioned in thek schedule from out of the Assetss of Karri Sri Rama Murthy, S/o Ramulu ( defendant in the above mentioned suit) lying iln the hands dof the Legal heirs of the deceased Sri
Ramak Murthy and lpass such other relief or reliefs as your Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Paper publication is not filed both parties called absent No representation on either side. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of September, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:09-12-2015 Date of Filing: 14-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Monday, this the 29th day of January, 2018.
I.P.No.12/2015 Between: Salapuy Nallamari,S/o Nallayya, Hindu, age 58 years, no occupation, resident of D.No.C/135,l Salapuvlanipalem village, Maredupudi post, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner. And:
1. Salapu Nanaji, S/o Appalanaidu @ Pogaku Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 33 years, business, resident of Salapuvanipalem, Maredupudi Post, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Salapu Santosh, S/o Appalanaidu @ Pogaku Appalanaidu, Hindu, agse 32 years, rest-do- Door No.7-2.
3. Salapu Neelababu,S/o Ammathalli, Hindu, age 42 years, rest -do- Door No.4-5.
4. Salapu Nookamma,W/o Neelababu, Hindu, age 35 years, rest -do- Door No.3-42.
5. Salapu Venkataramana @ Palu Ramana, S/o Durgalu,Hindu, age 44 years, rest-do- Door No 3-24.
6. Salapu Thata @ Bodi Appayyagari Thota, S/o Appanna, age 65 years, rest -do- Door No.2-34.
7. Salapull Pydamma, W/o Appalanaidu @ Shavukaru Apkpalanaidu, Hindu, age 60 years, rest- do- Door No.4-41.
8. Baliraselddy Sanyasamma W/o Meerayya, Hindu, age 65 years, rest -do- Door No.5-22.
Respondants.
This is a petition filed U/Sec.7 and 13 of provincial Insolvency Act . This is la spetition filed by the apetitioner against therespondentss(a) to allow the petition land to adjudicate the petitioner as an insolvent (b) for grant of such other or further relief or reliefs as the court may be deems fit and lproper in the cicumstances of the case.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Sec.II of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri R.D.Prasad, Advocate for Petiltioner and . Petitioner called absent no representation and this Court doth order :
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of A,B and C schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 5th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTs;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Monday, this the 29th day of January, 2018.
I.P.No.12/2015 Between: Salapuy Nallamari,S/o Nallayya, Hindu, age 58 years, no occupation, resident of D.No.C/135,l Salapuvlanipalem village, Maredupudi post, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner. And:
1. Salapu Nanaji, S/o Appalanaidu @ Pogaku Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 33 years, business, resident of Salapuvanipalem, Maredupudi Post, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Salapu Santosh, S/o Appalanaidu @ Pogaku Appalanaidu, Hindu, agse 32 yearls, rest-do- Door No.7-2.
3. Salapu Neelababu,S/o Ammathalli, Hindu, age 42 years, rest -do- Door No.4-5.
4. Salapu Nookamma,W/o Neelababu, Hindu, age 35 years, rest -do- Door No.3-42.
5. Salapu Venkataramana @ Palu Ramana, S/o Durgalu,Hindu, age 44 years, rest-do- Door No 3-24.
6. Salapu Thata @ Bodi Appayyagari Thota, S/o Appanna, age 65 years, rest -do- Door No.2-34.
7. Salapull Pydamma, W/o Appalanaidu @ Shavukaru Apkpalanaidu, Hindu, age 60 years, rest- do- Door No.4-41.
8. Baliraselddy Sanyasamma W/o Meerayya, Hindu, age 65 years, rest -do- Door No.5-22.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.D.Prasad, Advocate for Petiltioner and . Petitioner called absent no representation and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed U/Sec.7 and 13 of provincial Insolvency Act . This is la spetition filed by the apetitioner against therespondentss(a) to allow the petition land to adjudicate the petitioner as an insolvent (b) for grant of such other or further relief or reliefs as the court may be deems fit and lproper in the cicumstances of the case.
Petitioner called absent. Hence this petition is dismissed for defaualt.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 29th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
PW1/ Salapu Nallamari S/o Nallayya, dated 02-08-2017.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP Date of Presentation:29-06- 2011 Date of Filing:23-08-2011
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 5th day of January, 2018.
I.P.No.03/2011 Between: Tejaraj Rajpurohit S/o Tulasaajee, Hindu, age 45 ayears, No occupation C/o M/s Ramak Plywood, Glass & Hardware, Pudimadaka road, Anakapalle residing at J.P.Agraharam, Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal.
Petitioner. And:
1. Jogjee alias Jogarao Rajpurohit S/O of not known, Hindu, aged about 50 years, C/o of Rajastan Sweek Stall, Opp. To Vekatapathi Cinama Theatre, Adduraod, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Visakha District.
2. Sudheer S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 45 years, C/o Balajee Plywood & Laminates, 32-1-202, Bowdara Road, Beside Hotel Sri Kanya, Visakhapatnam- 530004.
3. Major Kumar S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 45 years, C/o Rajendra Wood Centre, Dr.No.27-23-56, Gopala Reedy Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada-520002.
4. M.Suresh Babu S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 40 years,C/oSri maruthi Glass House, Dr.No.6-2-37, S/1 Arundelpet, Guntur-522002.
5. Harish S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 40 years, C/oSri Ashapura Hardware, Dr. No.49-24-10, Shankaramatham Road, Madhuranagar, Visakhapatnam.
6. Jagat Doshi S/o not known,Hindu, aged about 55 years, C/o Raj Agencies, Dr.No. 49-24-51/A, Shop. G-3, Sri Pavan Estates, Shankar Matham Raod, Madhura Nagar, Visakhaptnam 530016.
7. Uttam Singh S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 25 years, C/oNeelkamal Hardware, Dr.No. 5-3-624/3, Shankar Bagh, Topkhana, Hyderabad-12.
8. P.V.Narasimha Rao S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 40 years, C/o Sri Premasai Marketing, Dr. no. 41-4-54, Metta Bazar, opp. Konanda Ramalayam Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada-13.
9. Vinod Jain S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 40 years, C/o Rajguru Plywood& Door, Dr.No. 27-23-22, Gopalareddy Raod, Near Ratnam Oil Company, Governorpet, Vijayawada-520002.
10. Sampath S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 50 years, C/o Sri Venkata Siva Durga Steel Coproration, Sobhanadri Lane, Main Bazar, Vijayawada.
11. Mhoit Kaushik S/o Madan Mohan Sarma, Hindu, aged about 55 years, C/o Gyanson Sales, Dr.No.5-2-520, Risla Abdullah, Osman Gunj, Hyderabad-500012.
12. Vidyasagar Agarawal S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 35 years, C/o Prince Ply, 49-12-29, Lalitha Nagar, Beside Lalitha Temple, Visakhapatnam-16.
13. Ambalal Kothari S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 60 years, C/o Kothari Aluminium, Dr.no.27-37-8, Bundar Road, Opp. To Manoraman Hoete, Vijayawada -520002.
14. Vardhaman S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 40 years, C/o Vardhaman Laminate House, Dr. No. 27-10-14, 15 Atta Rathaiah Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada.
15.Shaik Fayaz Basha S/o not known, Muslim, aged about 40 years, Sandeep Chemical industry, Plot. No. 129, Industrial Partk, Kondapalli-521228, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.
Respondants.
This is a petition filed U/Sec.7 and 10 of provincial Insolvency Act praying to adjudge the petitioner as insolvent .For any relief/reliefs as the
Honourable court deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Sec.II of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Konathala Srinvias, Advocate for Petiltioner and of Sri K.P.Naidu,
Advocate for Respondents. Petitioner callaed absent and this Court oth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of A,B and C schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 5th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTs;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 5th day of January, 2018.
I.P.No.03/2011 Between: Tejaraj Rajpurohit S/o Tulasaajee, Hindu, age 45 ayears, No occupation C/o M/s Ramak Plywood, Glass & Hardware, Pudimadaka road, Anakapalle residing at J.P.Agraharam, Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal.
Petitioner.
And:
1. Jogjee alias Jogarao Rajpurohit S/O of not known, Hindu, aged about 50 years, C/o of Rajastan Sweek Stall, Opp. To Vekatapathi Cinama Theatre, Adduraod, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Visakha District.
2. Sudheer S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 45 years, C/o Balajee Plywood & Laminates, 32-1-202, Bowdara Road, Beside Hotel Sri Kanya, Visakhapatnam- 530004.
3. Major Kumar S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 45 years, C/o Rajendra Wood Centre, Dr.No.27-23-56, Gopala Reedy Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada-520002.
4.M.Suresh Babu S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 40 years,C/o Sri maruthi Glass House, Dr.No.6-2-37, S/1 Arundelpet, Guntur-522002.
5. Harish S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 40 years, C/oSri Ashapura Hardware, Dr. No.49-24-10, Shankaramatham Road, Madhuranagar, Visakhapatnam.
6. Jagat Doshi S/o not known,Hindu, aged about 55 years, C/o Raj Agencies, Dr.No. 49-24-51/A, Shop. G-3, Sri Pavan Estates, Shankar Matham Raod, Madhura Nagar, Visakhaptnam 530016.
7. Uttam Singh S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 25 years, C/oNeelkamal Hardware, Dr.No. 5-3-624/3, Shankar Bagh, Topkhana, Hyderabad-12.
8. P.V.Narasimha Rao S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 40 years, C/o Sri Premasai Marketing, Dr. no. 41-4-54, Metta Bazar, opp. Konanda Ramalayam Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada-13.
9. Vinod Jain S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 40 years, C/o Rajguru Plywood& Door, Dr.No. 27-23-22, Gopalareddy Raod, Near Ratnam Oil Company, Governorpet, Vijayawada-520002.
10. Sampath S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 50 years, C/o Sri Venkata Siva Durga Steel Coproration, Sobhanadri Lane, Main Bazar, Vijayawada.
11. Mhoit Kaushik S/o Madan Mohan Sarma, Hindu, aged about 55 years, C/o Gyanson Sales, Dr.No.5-2-520, Risla Abdullah, Osman Gunj, Hyderabad-500012.
12. Vidyasagar Agarawal S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 35 years, C/o Prince Ply, 49-12-29, Lalitha Nagar, Beside Lalitha Temple, Visakhapatnam-16.
13. Ambalal Kothari S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 60 years, C/o Kothari Aluminium, Dr.no.27-37-8, Bundar Road, Opp. To Manoraman Hoete, Vijayawada -520002.
14. Vardhaman S/o not known, Hindu, aged about 40 years, C/o Vardhaman Laminate House, Dr. No. 27-10-14, 15 Atta Rathaiah Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada.
15.Shaik Fayaz Basha S/o not known, Muslim, aged about 40 years, Sandeep Chemical industry, Plot. No. 129, Industrial Partk, Kondapalli-521228, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Konathala Srinvias, Advocate for Petiltioner and of Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate for Respondents. Petitioner callaed absent and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed U/Sec.7 and 10 of provincial Insolvency Act praying to adjudge the petitioner as insolvent .For any relief/reliefs as the
Honourable court deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case.
Petitioner called absent. Hence this petition is dismissed for defaualt.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 5th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri K.Srinivasa Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Anakapalle Monday, this the 23rd day of April, 2018 I.P.No.5/2010
Between:
Tamatapu Sanyasi Rao S/o Nookaraju, Hindu, age 43 years, Prop: Show Ready made & Mens wear, Anakapalli residing at Door No.10-15-5, One way traffic down, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam.
Petitioner And:
1.Pethakamsetti Anand S/o Apparao Prop: Madhuri Hotel, Hindu, aged 30 years, Business, residing at D.No.14-6-8/1, Main road, Ring road junction, Ankapalli,Viskhapatnam District.
2. Pentakota Chandra Rao S/o Siva Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 35 years, business, residing Door No.8-14-31, lnaear : China Ramaswamy Kovela, Gavarapalem, Anakapallil-2, Visakhapatnam District.
3.lSuraisetti Raju, S/o not known to the petitioner, Hindu, age 28 years, Business, residilng at besdie D.No.16-7-2, Near: Gangiravi Cheetu,l Gaanga Kparadesamma gudi, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli-2.
4. Buddha Ramanjee S/o Venkatanarayana, Hindu, age 50 years, Door No.14-5- 7/4, business, residing at one way traffic down, Kaspa veedhi, Anakapalle.
5.Konathala Naidu S/o name not known to the petitioner, Hindu, aged 30 years, door No.12-13-27, Balajirao peta, Gandhi Market, Anakapalle.
6.Peela Babu, S/o name not nown to the petitioner, Hindu, age 50 years, D.No.7-11-2/2, Brandhi Shop business,l Near Railway station, Goods road, Anakapalle.
7.Polamarasetti Ramakrishna S/o name not known to the petitioner, Hindu, aged 32 years, Chit Fund business, D.No.10-20-50, Near Sri Sai Enterprises), Ring road, Anakapalle.
8.Villuri Bala S/o namel not known to the petitioner, Hindu, age 48 years, Chit fund business and Rice store, D.No.12-8-60 naear Old Jaggery market, Gandhi Market, Anakapalli.
9.Koyilada Satyanarayana S/o Balaram, Hindu, age 238 years, chit fund business, D.,No.20-1-41, Near China Ramaswamy kovel, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli-2. 10.Karri Apparao S/o name not known to the petitioner, Hindu, agel 52 years, Chit fund business,l Door No.14-16-11, Near Buddhal Babji Master’s house, Parameswari Park centre, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli-2.
11.Koyilada Ramesh S/o name not known to the petitioner, Hindu, age 33 years, chit fund business,l residing at D.No.18-8-8/1, near China Ramaswamy Kovela, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli-2.
12. Sunkara Ramakrishna S/o Venkata Rao, Hindu, age 45 years, D.No.13-8-36, Opp: Sri Venkateswara Temple, Demunigummam, Anakapalli.
13.Kandregula Venkata Jagga Rao S/o Samudram, Hindu, age 45 years, chit fund business, residing at Door No.14-12-9, Reei Adinarayana gari veedhi, Nidanam Doddi , Anakapallil-2.
14. Kandrelgula Rambabu S/o Appalanaidu,(operator) Hindu, agse 32 years, Chit fund business, residing at near Peda Ramaswamy Kovela, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle-2.
15.Buddha Naidu, S/o Satyanarayana, Hindu, age 30 years, Sowbhagyalakshmi Chits and Finance, D.No.14-7-14, Manohar Arcade, Opp: Fish market, Main road, Anakapalli.
16.Kandregula Bhaskara Rao S/o Thathayya, Hindu, age 45 years, D.No.14-16- 10, Laxmi Ganapathik Decorates, Park centre, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
17.Villluri Vinod, S/o name not known to the petitioner, Hindu, age years, residing at Door No.14-16-10, Laxmi Ganapathi Decorates, park centre, Gavarapalem, Anakaplli.
18. Malla Naidu S/o Suribabu ( Bakary) Hindu, age 30 years, Chit fund business, lresiding at Door no.14-15-8, Chadram Nookayya gari veedhi, Nidanam Doddi, Anakapalli-2.
19.Villuri Prasad S/o Mohana Rao, Hindu, age 30 years, chit fund business, residing at Door No.12-11-5, Apsara Photo studio, Four roads junction, main road, Anakapalli.
20. dKarri Bujjil S/o name not known to the petitioner, hindu, age 30 years, chit fundl andKirlana business, lresiding D.No.16-7-5, near Gangiravi chettu, Ganga Paradesamma gudi, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli-2.
21. Yellapu Chakravarthi S/o Ramu, Hindu, age 30 years, chit fund business, resildilng at Venkanna kottu junction, Door No.15-12-39, near Sathakampattu, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli.
22.Konathala Venkata Rao S/o name not known to the petitioner, Hindu, age 55 years, resilding at Door No.14-12-9, Reddi Adinarayana gari veedhi, Nidanam doddi, Anakapalli-2.
23.Chadaram Ramachandra Rao S/o Nookunaidu, Hindu, age 28 years D.No.4- 7, chit fund business, residing at Gavarapaeta, Thummapala, Anakapalli Mandal.
24. Tirupathi Ravi lbabu S/o Atchibabu, Hindu, age 28 years, Opp. No.13-7-17, Chit fund business, residing at Demunigummamu, Anakapalli.
25.Yellapu Siva Kumar S/o Name not known to the petitioner, (Yellapu Bhaskara Rao alias Babai,Financjke business, Hilndu, age 45 years, residing at Old post office veedhi, near Sivalayam, Nagulapalli village D.No.1-20 Munagapaka Mandal.
26.Bheemarasetti Sivaji S/o name not known to the petitioner, Hindu, age 48 years, Finance business, residing Door No.19-7-52, near Buddha Apparaonaidu gari house, Gavarapalem, Anakakpalli.
27.Karri Venkata Rao S/o Jagga Apparao, Hindu, age 50 years, chit fund business, residingl at D.No.18-5-6, Villuri Parandamayya gari vaeedhi, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli-2.
28. Dadi Naidul S/o Suri Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, chit fund business Door No.14-23-13, Near Sattemmatalli Gudi, Dasari gedda road,l Nidanamdoddi, Anakapalli-2.
29. Paentakota Seetha Ramu S/o name not known to the petitioner, Hilndu, age 35 years, Lakshmi Ganesh cycle stores residing at D.No.14-7-14, Manohar Arcade, Opp: Fish Market, main road, bside : I.C.I.C.I. bank, Anakapalli.
30.Yellapu Janaradana S/o Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, residing at D.No.12-5- 12, near Nookambica Kovela veedhi, Behind Kasi baba Kovela near Adari Saeetharam Godown, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli-2.
31. Kommanakpalli lnaidu S/o Ramana, Hindu, age 35 years, Door No.20-1-85, naear China Ramaswamy Kovela,l Thota Veedhi, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli.
32.Gangaboyina Ramakrishna S/o name not known to the petitioner, Hindu, age 40 years, finance business, residing at Door No.14-2-12/1, beside Bharat Tailor house, one way traffic down, Opp:Malla Sambasiva Rao’s house, Anakapalli.
33. Polamarasetti Nooka Jagga Apparao S/oRama Rao, Hindu, age 40 years, residing at D.No.15-11-4/12, Nookalamma Kovela veedhi, Anakapalli-2.
34.Adaril Nookeswara Rao, S/o Name not known to the petitioner, Hindu, age 35 years, Nidanam Doddi, Gowri Grandalayam veedhi, D.No.14-16-5, Anakapalli-2.
35.Nandela Vijaya W/o Eswara Rao, Hindu,l age 40 years, House holdl duties, reksiding at Door No.32-5-29, Nathayyapalem, New Bus stop, Visakhapatnam District-26.
36.Kolaparthi Jayababu S/o late Apparao,l business, D.No.14-9-51,l one way traffic down, Sagi Subbal Raju gari veedhi, Anakapalli-2.
37. Yellapu Rama Rao S/o name not known to the petitioner, aged 58 years, chit fundl business, Door No.15-12-32, near Venkanna Kottu,l Yellapu vari veedhi, Sathakampattu, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli-2.
38. Yellapou Bhaskara arao aliakls Chinna S/o Rama Rao, age 28 ylears, Chit fund business, Hindu, age 32 years, raesidilng at rest-do-.
Respondents.
Date of Presentatio:23-01-2014 Date of Filing: 24-01-2014
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.03/2014
Between: Payala Jyothi, W/o Srilnivasu, C/o. Palli Rajeswara Rao, Hindu, age 24 years, House holdl dutiles, residing at 4-15. Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal,l Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And:
Payala Srilnivasu, S/o Rajeswara Rao, age 35 yealrs, Residing at Door No.3-4- 26/1, Telephone Exchange street, Narasingaraopeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Respondent
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-
Husband to directing the respondent to come to the house of the petitioner and live with him for discharging her conjugal obligations and for costs of the petition.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 is paid under Sch.II Art.I(vii) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar,K.Gangadhararao, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri V.Rajasekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called present.Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition in view of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Memo is recoraded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs
Given under my hand and theseal of this court, this the 22nd day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 30 th day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.3/2012
Between: Pasupuletil Jyothi, W/o Chandrarao, Hindu, age 23 years, housewife, residing at D.No.9-47, C/o Kudirella Sanyasirao, Munagapaka village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And:
Pasupuleti Chandrarao,S/o Nooka Raju , Hindu, age 26 years, employee, Command Musician office, Head quarters Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base(P.O) D.Nop.15-7-12/2, Visakhapatnam-14.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriV.V.Jogayya and M.Srilnivasarao, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri A.S.V.Prasad, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called petitioner absent. Respondent is present. No representation for petitioner side .The counsel for the Respondent filed ecourts copy of orders in OP33/2012.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-husband lfor restitution of conjugal life of the petitio;ner with the rekskpondent, directing the respondent to laead happy marital lifle lwilth the petiltioner and lfor costs of the petition.
Objectio;nsl not filed. Both parties called. Petitioner absent. Respondent is present. No rsepresentation for petitioner side. The counsel for the
Respondent filed ecourts copy of orders in O.P.33/2012 on the file of Additional
Family Court, visakhapatnam allowing the application and granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under these circumstlances dthis petition is dilsmissed in view of the orders passed by Honourable in O.P.33/2012 abetween the same parties grant ldecree of divorce.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 30th day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Datae of Presentation:24-02-2012 Date of Filing:24-02-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 30 th day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.3/2012
Between: Pasupuletil Jyothi, W/o Chandrarao, Hindu, age 23 years, housewife, residing at D.No.9-47, C/o Kudirella Sanyasirao, Munagapaka village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And:
Pasupuleti Chandrarao,S/o Nooka Raju , Hindu, age 26 years, employee, Command Musician office, Head quarters Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base(P.O) D.Nop.15-7-12/2, Visakhapatnam-14.
Respondent
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-husband lfor restitution of conjugal life of the petitio;ner with the rekskpondent, directing the respondent to laead happy marital lifle lwilth the petiltioner and lfor costs of the petition.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 is paid under Art.I (vii) ,Sch.II of Sec.10 of
A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of SriV.V.Jogayya and M.Srilnivasarao, Advocates for petitioner and of
Sri A.S.V.Prasad, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called petitioner absent. Respondent is present. No representation for petitioner side .The counsel for the Respondent filed ecourts copy of orders in OP33/2012 on the file of Addl.Family Court, Visakhapatnam allowing the applickation and lgrantaing decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under these circumstances this petition is dismissed in view of the orders passed by the
Honourable Addl.Family Court, Visakhapatnam in OP33/2012 abetween the
same parties grant decree of divorce hence this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed
2) that there be no costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 30th day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER; FOR RESPONDENT:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 24 th day of October, 2017
HMOP.NO.49/2013
Between: Alla Swarulpa @ Varaha Lalitha Sawarupa,W/o Rama Chandra Prasad, Hindu, age 19 years, Household duties, residing at Door No.19-4-17, Buddha Prakasa Rao Naidu gari street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
Petitioner And:
Alla Rama Chandra Prasad, S/o China Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, physically handicapped, residing at Door No.50-83-10, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 16.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriBuddha Thrinadha Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.11 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 13.02.2013 due to non consummation of marriage as null and void and for costs of the petition.
Both parties calasled absent. No representation on either side .Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 24th day of October, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.03/2014
Between: Payala Jyothi, W/o Srilnivasu, C/o. Palli Rajeswara Rao, Hindu, age 24 years, House holdl dutiles, residing at 4-15. Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal,l Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And:
Payala Srilnivasu, S/o Rajeswara Rao, age 35 yealrs, Residing at Door No.3-4- 26/1, Telephone Exchange street, Narasingaraopeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriK.Chandra Sekhar,K.Gangadhararao, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri V.Rajasekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called present.Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition in view of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Memo is recoraded and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-Husband to directing the respondent to come to the house of the petitioner and live with him for discharging her conjugal obligations and for costs of the petition.
Both parties called present. Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition inveiw of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 22nd day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 24 th day of October, 2017
HMOP.NO.49/2013
Between: Alla Swarulpa @ Varaha Lalitha Sawarupa,W/o Rama Chandra Prasad, Hindu, age 19 years, Household duties, residing at Door No.19-4-17, Buddha Prakasa Rao Naidu gari street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
Petitioner And:
Alla Rama Chandra Prasad, S/o China Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, physically handicapped, residing at Door No.50-83-10, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 16.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriBuddha Thrinadha Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.11 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 13.02.2013 due to non consummation of marriage as null and void and for costs of the petition.
Both parties calasled absent. No representation on either side .Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 24th day of October, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.03/2014
Between: Payala Jyothi, W/o Srilnivasu, C/o. Palli Rajeswara Rao, Hindu, age 24 years, House holdl dutiles, residing at 4-15. Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal,l Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And:
Payala Srilnivasu, S/o Rajeswara Rao, age 35 yealrs, Residing at Door No.3-4- 26/1, Telephone Exchange street, Narasingaraopeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriK.Chandra Sekhar,K.Gangadhararao, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri V.Rajasekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called present.Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition in view of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Memo is recoraded and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-Husband to directing the respondent to come to the house of the petitioner and live with him for discharging her conjugal obligations and for costs of the petition.
Both parties called present. Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition inveiw of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 22nd day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 24 th day of October, 2017
HMOP.NO.49/2013
Between: Alla Swarulpa @ Varaha Lalitha Sawarupa,W/o Rama Chandra Prasad, Hindu, age 19 years, Household duties, residing at Door No.19-4-17, Buddha Prakasa Rao Naidu gari street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
Petitioner And:
Alla Rama Chandra Prasad, S/o China Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, physically handicapped, residing at Door No.50-83-10, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 16.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriBuddha Thrinadha Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.11 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 13.02.2013 due to non consummation of marriage as null and void and for costs of the petition.
Both parties calasled absent. No representation on either side .Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 24th day of October, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:19-11-2013 Date of Filing:25-11-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 24 th day of October, 2017
HMOP.NO.49/2013
Between:
Alla Swarulpa @ Varaha Lalitha Sawarupa,W/o Rama Chandra Prasad, Hindu, age 19 years, Household duties, residing at Door No.19-4-17, Buddha Prakasa Rao Naidu gari street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
Petitioner And:
Alla Rama Chandra Prasad, S/o China Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, physically handicapped, residing at Door No.50-83-10, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 16.
Respondent
Petition filed under Sec.11 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 13.02.2013 due to non consummation of marriage as null and void and for costs of the petition.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 ils paid under Sch.II Art.I (Vii) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of SriBuddha Thrinadha Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri
K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of thi court, this the 24th day of October, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDSENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 24 th day of October, 2017
HMOP.NO.49/2013
Between:
Alla Swarulpa @ Varaha Lalitha Sawarupa,W/o Rama Chandra Prasad, Hindu, age 19 years, Household duties, residing at Door No.19-4-17, Buddha Prakasa Rao Naidu gari street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
Petitioner And:
Alla Rama Chandra Prasad, S/o China Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, physically handicapped, residing at Door No.50-83-10, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 16.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriBuddha Thrinadha Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.11 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 13.02.2013 due to non consummation of marriage as null and void and for costs of the petition.
Both parties calasled absent. No representation on either side .Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 24th day of October, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
LAOP.NO.125/2012 Between:
1) Sri Karaka Kalyanam S/o late Jaggunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram ,Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Karaka Sambhamurthy, S/o late Jagunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Claimants And:
Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition officer, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam Bayyavaram, Kasimkota, Visakhapatnam District.
Referring officer.
This is a reference made under Sec.30 &31 of Land Acquisition Act by the Special Tahasildar Land Acquisition Revenue Division Visakhapatnam for formation of Left canal to reservoir across Rangabolupgedda in Bayyavaram village for an extent of Ac.0.063/4 cents iln S.No.664/4B, 664/10/A ,Bayyavaram village of Kasimkota Mandal.
In this reference there are 2 (two) claimants.
The LAO deposited an amount of Rs.11,03,066-00 towards compensation amount for the Award No.22/2006 dated 20-12-2005 and the same was kept in
FDR of State Bank of India, Anakapalle.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in person and of Sri Asst.Government Pleader for Referring officer. Claimant called absent.
Claim statement not filed. No representation. Hence reference is closed and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that L.A.O.P petition be and thesame is hereby closed as claimant called absent No representation;
2) that there be no order as to costs.
Given under my handk and the seal of this court, this the 27th day of December, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR CLAIMANTS: FOR REFERING OFFICER;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 27 th day of December, 2017
LAOP.NO.125/2012 Between:
1) Sri Karaka Kalyanam S/o late Jaggunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram ,Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Karaka Sambhamurthy, S/o late Jagunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Claimants And:
Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition officer, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam Bayyavaram, Kasimkota, Visakhapatnam District.
Referring officer.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in person and of Sri Asst.Government Pleader for Referring officer. Claimant called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Hence reference ils closed and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a reference made under Sec.30 &31 of Land Acquisition Act by the Special Tahasildar Land Acquisition Revenue Division Visakhapatnam for formation of Left canal to reservoir across Rangabolupgedda in Bayyavaram village for an extent of Ac.0.063/4 cents iln S.No.664/4B, 664/10/A ,Bayyavaram village of Kasimkota Mandal.
In this reference there are 2 (two) claimants.
The LAO deposited an amount of Rs.11,03,066-00 towards compensation amount for the Award No.22/2006 dated 20-12-2005 and the same was kept in
FDR of State Bank of India, Anakapalle.
Claim statement not filed. Claimant called absent. No representation.
Perusal of record reveals the claimant present in person on 28.08.2012 thereafter matter ils posted for time to time for filing claim statement. So far no claim statement ils filled till today. Today also clailmant calaled absent. No representation. Hence reference is closed consign the record toi record room.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 27th day of December, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 5th day of January, 2018
SOP.NO.74/2017 Between: 1)Ganta Venkatesh,S/o late Neeladri Rao,lHilndu, age 21 years, unemployee, residing at D.No.3-3-69, NTR colony, Sirasapalli (village) Narasingaraopeta (PO) Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ganta Satyadevi,D/o Neeladri Rao, Hilndu, age 22 years, residing at D.No. 3-3-69, NTR colonyl, Sirasapalli village, Narasingaraopeta P.O. Visakhapatnam District. Petitioners And:
The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Visakha Steel City Depot, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam-5300046.
Respondant
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Apparao, Advocate for Petitioners. Petitioner called absent No representation and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1954.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners to issue succession certificate in favour of the petitioners to receive the amounts as shown in the schedule from the respondent and for other reliefs.
Petitioner called absent No representation hence petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 5th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:25-11-2017
Date of Filing:01-12-2017
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 5th day of January, 2018
SOP.NO.74/2017 Between: 1)Ganta Venkatesh,S/o late Neeladri Rao,lHilndu, age 21 years, unemployee, residing at D.No.3-3-69, NTR colony, Sirasapalli (village) Narasingaraopeta (PO) Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ganta Satyadevi,D/o Neeladri Rao, Hilndu, age 22 years, residing at D.No. 3-3-69, NTR colonyl, Sirasapalli village, Narasingaraopeta P.O. Visakhapatnam District. Petitioners And:
The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Visakha Steel City Depot, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam-5300046.
Respondant
This is a petition filed under 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1954.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners to issue succession certificate in favour of the petitioners to receive the amounts as shown in the schedule from the respondent and for other reliefs.
A court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Art.VII of Sch.I of APCF and SVAct.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.Apparao, Advocate for Petitioners. Petitioner called absent No representation and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 5th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:19-04-2014 Date of Filing:30-04-2014
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 19th day of January, 2018
HMOP.NO.26/2014
Between: Nanibilli Nookaraju,S/o late Baburao, Hindu, age 30 years, Driver, resident of Door No. Tegada village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner And:
Nanibilli Nagalakshmi,lW/o Nookaraju, Hindu, age 22 years, housewife, residing at C/o Pasupuleti Eswararao, Door No. Kandipudi villlage, Butchiyyapeta and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondant
This is a petition filed under Sec.13(1) (ia) and (ib) of H.M.Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners (a) for grant of decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent on 12.11.2011 on the ground of cruelty and desertion and for costs of the suit.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Art.IL (vii) Sch.II of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri K.S.Achari and Sri G.Krilshnaveni, Advocates for Petitioner and of Sri K.David, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent No representation on either side hence this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for defaualt;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 19th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 19th day of January, 2018
HMOP.NO.26/2014
Between: Nanibilli Nookaraju,S/o late Baburao, Hindu, age 30 years, Driver, resident of Door No. Tegada village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner And:
Nanibilli Nagalakshmi,lW/o Nookaraju, Hindu, age 22 years, housewife, residing at C/o Pasupuleti Eswararao, Door No. Kandipudi villlage, Butchiyyapeta and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondant
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.S.Achari and Sri G.Krilshnaveni, Advocates for Petitioner and of Sri K.David, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent No representation on either side hence this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Sec.13(1) (ia) and (ib) of H.M.Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners (a) for grant of decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent on 12.11.2011 on the ground of cruelty and desertion and for costs of the suit.
Both parties called absent No representation on either side hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:02-11-2005 Date of Filing:29-11-2005
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 31st day of August, 2017
I.P.No.13/2005 Between: Naga Manikyam wife of Tatayyalu, age 70 years, Hindu, No occupation, residing at Nagavamsam Veedhi, Anakapalle.
Petitioner. And:
1. Ravi Seshukumari, wife of Sreenivasarao, age 25 yearsl, Hindu, Household duties, residing at Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam-16.
2. Naga Laxmikantam, wife of Ramana,l age 35 years, Hindu, residing near Santabyalu, Vaddadi village, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Yelugula Ramana, son of Apparao, age 40 years, Allikhanudupalem, Anakapalle Mandal.
4. Rayi Bullemma, wife of Jagannadham, age 50 years, hindu, Lokavari veedhi, Anakapalle.
5.Nagumalla Sanyasamma, wife of Venkatarao, age 60 years, Hindu, Maturu village, Anakakpalle Mandal.
6.Kolluru Pramod Kumar, son of Narasingarao, age 35 years, Hindu, Main road,Anakapalle.
7.Palukuril Kamaraju, son of Sreeramamurthy,l age 35 years, Hindu, business, residing at Anjayya colony, Anakapalle.
Respondants.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents(a) to declare the petitioner as an insolvent and discharge her from her creditors and for costs of the petition.
A fixed court fees of Rs.50/- is paid on this petition under Sch.II.Article II of ACF and S.V.;Act. An amount of Rs.1500/- paid towards administrative charges and publication by way of challan No.2081, dated 28.10.2005.
This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri P.S.Kumar and Sri P.A.Narasimham, Advocates for Petitioner . As memo filed vide GR.No.1563/dt.07.07.2017 petitioner died and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the Insolvent petition be and the same is hereby closed as petitioner died;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( copy of petition A and B schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 31st day of August,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 31st day of August, 2017
I.P.No.13/2005 Between: Naga Manikyam wife of Tatayyalu, age 70 years, Hindu, No occupation, residing at Nagavamsam Veedhi, Anakapalle.
Petitioner. And:
1. Ravi Seshukumari, wife of Sreenivasarao, age 25 yearsl, Hindu, Household duties, residing at Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam-16.
2. Naga Laxmikantam, wife of Ramana,l age 35 years, Hindu, residing near Santabyalu, Vaddadi village, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Yelugula Ramana, son of Apparao, age 40 years, Allikhanudupalem, Anakapalle Mandal.
4. Rayi Bullemma, wife of Jagannadham, age 50 years, hindu, Lokavari veedhi, Anakapalle 5.Nagumalla Sanyasamma, wife of Venkatarao, age 60 years, Hindu, Maturu village, Anakakpalle Mandal. 6.Kolluru Pramod Kumar, son of Narasingarao, age 35 years, Hindu, Main road,Anakapalle. 7.Palukuril Kamaraju, son of Sreeramamurthy,l age 35 years, Hindu, business, residing at Anjayya colony, Anakapalle.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.S.Kumar and Sri P.A.Narasimham, Advocates for Petitioner . As memo filed vide GR.No.1563/dt.07.07.2017 petitioner died and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents(a) to declare the petitioner as an insolvent and discharge her from her creditors and for costs of the petition.
As memo filed vide GR.No.1563/dt.07.07.2017 as petitioner/insolvent died the petition is closed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 31st day of August, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 30-10-2012/15-11-2012 Date of Fililng: 15-11-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 22nd day of December,2017
I.P.No.04/2012 Between: 1.Vaddi Raju, S/o Appalaraju, age 35 years, residing at D.No.1-169, Ramakpuram colony, A.M.A.L.College road, Kothuru village andl panchayat, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner. And:
1. Afoz Bhanu,W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 35 years, Muslim, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C. Apartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle,Visakhapatnam District. 2.Md.Fathilma, husband’s namek not known to the petitioner, C/o Afoz Bhanu, W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 28 ayears, Hindu, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C.Akpartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Md. Ahamad, S/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 30 years, Muslim, residing at D.No. 7-48/1, Muslims steet, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4. M.Sameema, W/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 40 years, Muslim, residing at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5.Zameela Begum, D/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 25 years, Muslim, resilding at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar,l Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6.Shaik Halima, W/o Mohaddin,l age 30 years, Muslim care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, Pudimadaka raod, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. 7.Karim, father’s name not known to the petitioner,l age 28 years, Muslim, residing at care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, pudimadaka road, Anakapalle, Vilsakhapatnam Dilstrict. 8.A.Arjunarao, father’s name not known to the petitioner, age 32 years, Teacher in A.M.A.A. High School, residing at D.No.2-139, near K.L.N.Parlour, A.M.A.L. college road, Kothuru village, Anakapalle mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 9.Bobbili Anatha Lakshmi W/o Bobbilil Appalaraju, age 25 years, Hindu, Teacher,l residing at Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondants.
Petitioner to declare the as insolvent person ( indigent person) and discharge him from all of theliabilities and debts due to the respondents and or costs of the petition.
A court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Art.11(L)2(ili) of Sch.ILI of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri S.Narasingarao, I.R.Gangadhar, Advocates for Petitioner and petitioner called present filed memo not pressing the petition. Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the Insolvent petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( copy of petition A and B schedule hereto enclosed)
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of December,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 22nd day of December,2017
I.P.No.04/2012 Between: 1.Vaddi Raju, S/o Appalaraju, age 35 years, residing at D.No.1-169, Ramakpuram colony, A.M.A.L.College road, Kothuru village andl panchayat, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner. And:
1. Afoz Bhanu,W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 35 years, Muslim, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C. Apartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle,Visakhapatnam District. 2.Md.Fathilma, husband’s namek not known to the petitioner, C/o Afoz Bhanu, W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 28 ayears, Hindu, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C.Akpartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Md. Ahamad, S/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 30 years, Muslim, residing at D.No. 7-48/1, Muslims steet, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4. M.Sameema, W/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 40 years, Muslim, residing at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5.Zameela Begum, D/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 25 years, Muslim, resilding at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar,l Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6.Shaik Halima, W/o Mohaddin,l age 30 years, Muslim care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, Pudimadaka raod, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. 7.Karim, father’s name not known to the petitioner,l age 28 years, Muslim, residing at care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, pudimadaka road, Anakapalle, Vilsakhapatnam Dilstrict. 8.A.Arjunarao, father’s name not known to the petitioner, age 32 years, Teacher in A.M.A.A. High School, residing at D.No.2-139, near K.L.N.Parlour, A.M.A.L. college road, Kothuru village, Anakapalle mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 9.Bobbili Anatha Lakshmi W/o Bobbilil Appalaraju, age 25 years, Hindu, Teacher,l residing at Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Narasingarao, I.R.Gangadhar, Advocates for Petitioner and petitioner called present filed memo not pressing the petition. Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petitioner to declare the as insolvent person ( indigent person) and discharge him from all of theliabilities and debts due to the respondents; and or costs of the suit.
Petitioner called present filed memo not pressing the petition. Heard.
Memo is recorded. This petition dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of December,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentatioin:21-03-2012
Date of Filing:09-04-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this thw 24th day of January, 2018.
I.P.No.01/2012 Between: 1.Doddi Naga Mophana Rao, S/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 32 years, cultivation, residing at Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal. 2.Polamarasetty Adi Murthy, S/o Apparao, Hindu, age 35 yealrs, cultivation, residing at Teacher’s colonyl, 3rd line, Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal.
3.Yellapu Sasi Bhushanam Rao, S/o late Kondala Rao, Hindu, age 47 years, residing at D.No.15-19-6, P.V.R.Naidu street, Opp. Women college, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli. Petitioners. And:
1.Yellapu Mangayyamma,W/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 48 years, business, residing at D.No.2-13-13,l Bo;ddeda vari veedhi,l Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalli. 2.Yellapu Venkata Nooka Apparao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, business, rest-do-
3. Yellapu Vani, W/o Venkata Nooka Appa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, business, C/o Pentakota Ramana, D.No.6-42-4, TVN colony,besides drivaer’s colony, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Adari Tilak, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, Business, residing at C/o Adari Rama Ra;o, Door No.14-13, Opp. Pada Gas Godown Court veedhi, Gandhinagaram, Anakapalli.
5. Yellapu Rama Krishna, S/o late Nooka Raju, Hindu, age 42 years, employee, residing at Door No.2-13-13 rest -do-.
Respondants.
This is a petition filed U/Sec.9 of provincial Insolvency Act praying to adjudge the respondent No.1 as insolvent ;(b) to appoint an interim receiver in respect of the estate of 1st respondent i.e. “B” schedule property; (c) to make an order directing the official receiver to take actual physical possession over the”B” schedule property.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 is paid thereon under Sectilon 20 ScheduleI
Art.II(a) of APCF and S.V.Act. Administrative charges of Rs.2000/- is paid vide challan No.6604 dated 29.03.2012.
This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Budha Trinadha Rao, Advocate for Petiltioners and No evidence isfiled the petitioners called absent No representatilon and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the Insolvency petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of petition A and B schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 24th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this thw 24th day of January, 2018.
I.P.No.01/2012 Between: 1.Doddi Naga Mophana Rao, S/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 32 years, cultivation, residing at Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal. 2.Polamarasetty Adi Murthy, S/o Apparao, Hindu, age 35 yealrs, cultivation, residing at Teacher’s colonyl, 3rd line, Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal.
3.Yellapu Sasi Bhushanam Rao, S/o late Kondala Rao, Hindu, age 47 years, residing at D.No.15-19-6, P.V.R.Naidu street, Opp. Women college, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli. Petitioners. And:
1.Yellapu Mangayyamma,W/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 48 years, business, residing at D.No.2-13-13,l Bo;ddeda vari veedhi,l Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalli. 2.Yellapu Venkata Nooka Apparao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, business, rest-do-
3. Yellapu Vani, W/o Venkata Nooka Appa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, business, C/o Pentakota Ramana, D.No.6-42-4, TVN colony,besides drivaer’s colony, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Adari Tilak, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, Business, residing at C/o Adari Rama Ra;o, Door No.14-13, Opp. Pada Gas Godown Court veedhi, Gandhinagaram, Anakapalli.
5. Yellapu Rama Krishna, S/o late Nooka Raju, Hindu, age 42 years, employee, residing at Door No.2-13-13 rest -do-.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Budha Trinadha Rao, Advocate for Petiltioners and No evidence isfiled the petitioners called absent No representatilon and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed U/Sec.9 of provincial Insolvency Act praying to adjudge the respondent No.1 as insolvent ;(b) to appoint an interim receiver in respect of the estate of 1st respondent i.e. “B” schedule property; (c) to make an order directing the official receiver to take actual physical possession over the”B” schedule property.
No evidence is filed the petitioner called absent No representation. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 20-10-2014 Date of Filing:20-04-2014
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.263/2014
Between: Penmetsa Vishnukumar Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju, age 53 years, residing at Plot No.A-19, D.No.50-104-1/9, Seeethammadhara N.E.Layout, Visakhapatnam-13. Plaintiff. And:
1.Karri Bangarunaidu S/o Ramunaidu, age 52 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Karri Ramprasad S/o Ramunaidu, age 44 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
Suit filed by the plaintilff against the defendants(a) to pass a decree to directilng the defendants to execute the register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaintk kschedule property interms of the agreement of sale executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff within time fixed by the court (b) in case if the defendants fail to execute and register a sale deed, the court may itself execute and register a sale deed for aand on behalf of the defendants in respect of theplailant schedule at the expenses of the plaintiff
(c) to put the plaiantiff’s in possessilon of the plailnt schedule after evicting the defendants therefrom (d) alternatively, if the court feels that for any reason, the relief of specific performance could not be awarded, directing the defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,24,160/- paid by the plaintiff under the agreement of sale dtogether with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the agreement of sale till date of full land final reliazation and for costs of the suilt.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is valued at
Rs.5,24,160-00 and a court fee of Rs.7726/- is being paid under Sec.39, r/w
Sch.I Art.I (b) & (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi and Sri V.Viswanadham,Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri
M.Srinivasarao and M.V.R.Bhupathirao, Advocates for 1st defendant and of Sri
S.P.Naidu and R.Appalanaidu, Advocates for 2nd defendant . Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit claim. Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 01st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.263/2014
Between: Penmetsa Vishnukumar Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju, age 53 years,residing at Plot No.A-19, D.No.50-104-1/9, Seeethammadhara N.E.Layout, Visakhapatnam-13. Plaintiff. And:
1.Karri Bangarunaidu S/o Ramunaidu, age 52 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Karri Ramprasad S/o Ramunaidu, age 44 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi and Sri V.Viswanadham,Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri M.Srinivasarao and M.V.R.Bhupathirao, Advocates for 1st defendant and of Sri S.P.Naidu and R.Appalanaidu, Advocates for 2nd defendant . Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit claim. Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintilff against the defendants(a) to pass a decree to directilng the defendants to execute the register a sale deed iln favour of the plailntiff in respect of the plaintk kschedule property ilnterms of the agreement of sale executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff withiln time fixed by the court (b) in case if the defendants fail to execute and register a sale deed, the court may itself execute and register a sale deed for aand on behalf of the defendants in respect of theplailant schedule at the expenses of the plaintiff (c) to put the plaiantiff’s in possessilon of the plailnt schedule after evicting the defendants therefrom (d) alternatively, if the court feels that for any reason, the relief of specific performance could not be awarded, directing the defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,24,160/- paid by the plaintiff under the agreement of sale dtogether with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the agreement of sale till date of full land final reliazattion and for costs of the suilt.
Plaintiff filed a memo not press the suit claim as matter was settled out of court. Hence memo is recorded the suilt is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.199/2012
Between: Vennela Pydamma,W/o Somulu, Hindu, age 65 years, household duties, resildilng at D.No.8-4, Mettapalem village, lH/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Paraawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Eerla Sreeramulu,S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 52 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.7-56,Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steet project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
2.Eerla Suryanarayana, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 50 years, cultivation, residilng at D.No.7-55, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
3.Eerla Vonumulu, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 48 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.30-71-1, Appikonda RH colonyll, Vadlapudi, Gajuwakal Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
4. Kundrapu Somulamma, W/o Mutyalu, Hindu, age 62 years, housewife, residing at D.No.30-7-1, Appikonda RH colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
5.Kundrapu Simhachalam W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 86 years, residing at Door No.7-5, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project office, Visakhapatnam-31.
6. Geddam Kpentamma, W/o Simhachalam, age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.5-4, Hastinapuram, H/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Ramineni Venkateswararao, S/o Basavayya, Hindu, age 45 years, business, resilding at D.No.10-32-6, Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya and Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.7 and defendants 1,3,4,6 remind exparte and suit against defendant 2 and 5 dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties at metes and bounds into seven equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and such equal shares dto thedefendants 1 to 6, and deliver separate possession ofk such share so allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 on converting the joint possession into separate possession; for profits that can be determined by way of separate application; and for costs of the suit.
PW.1 called absent No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 31st day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFF:-
P.W.1/ dt.8.12.2017 - Vennela Pydamma W/o Somulu.(Chief examination only)
FOR DEFENDANT:- NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 16-08-2012
Date of Filing:16-08-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.199/2012
Between: Vennela Pydamma,W/o Somulu, Hindu, age 65 years, household duties, resildilng at D.No.8-4, Mettapalem village, lH/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Paraawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Eerla Sreeramulu,S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 52 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.7-56, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steet project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
2.Eerla Suryanarayana, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 50 years, cultivation, residilng at D.No.7-55, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
3.Eerla Vonumulu, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 48 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.30-71-1, Appikonda RH colonyll, Vadlapudi, Gajuwakal Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
4. Kundrapu Somulamma, W/o Mutyalu, Hindu, age 62 years, housewife, residing at D.No.30-7-1, Appikonda RH colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
5.Kundrapu Simhachalam W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 86 years, residing at Door No.7-5, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project office, Visakhapatnam-31.
6. Geddam Kpentamma, W/o Simhachalam, age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.5-4, Hastinapuram, H/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Ramineni Venkateswararao, S/o Basavayya, Hindu, age 45 years, business, resilding at D.No.10-32-6, Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
Suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties at metes and bounds into seven equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and such equal shares dto thedefendants 1 to 6, and deliver separate possession ofk such share so allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 on converting the joint possession into separate possession; for profits that can be determined by way of separate application; and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction of this court
Valuel of the plaint schedule property consisting of Ac.5.00 cents and @
Rs.15,00,000/- per acre as per basic value register Rs. 16,05,000-00
Plaintiff’s 1/7th share Rs. 10,71,428-00 3/4th value share Rs. 8,03,571-00
C.F. of Rs.10,826-00 is payable, but a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid under
Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya and Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri
A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.7 and defendants 1,3,4,6 remind exparte and suit against defendant 2 and 5 dismissed for default and this Court doth order and ;
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and theseal of this court, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.189/2017
Between: Chekuri Ramaraju S/o Venkata Raju @ Venkatarao, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, resident of D.No.1-38, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Gogula Srinivas S/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, age 49 years, resident of D.No.1- 113, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram & Sri BSVRajagopal,Advocates for plaintiff. Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit . Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery oif
Rs.6,84,333/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note
dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of
plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
I.A59 /2018 is allowed. Accordingly the matter is advanced to today from 23.02.2018.
The plaintiff is present. Plaintiff filed memo not pressing the suit as matter was settled out of court. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly suit is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:19-12-2017
Date of Filing:19-12-2017
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.189/2017
Between: Chekuri Ramaraju S/o Venkata Raju @ Venkatarao, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, resident of D.No.1-38, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Gogula Srinivas S/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, age 49 years, resident of D.No.1- 113, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery oif
Rs.6,84,333/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note
dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of
plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is
Rs.6,84,333/- and a court fee of Rs.9,326/- is paid under Section 20 r/w Art.I(a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram & Sri B.S.V.Rajagopal, Advocates for plaintiff. Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit . Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs;
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.255/2013
Between: Panduri Satyarao S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, age 69 years, retired MPDO, Sabbavaram, N/o Venkatapuram village Munagapaka Mandal, presently, residing at D.No.14-38-1/A, Plot No.303, Viswanadh Residency, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2. Plaintiff. And:
1. Panduri Kanaka Apparao,s/o Late Nookaiah, Hindu, age 45 years, Resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Panduri Ramalakshmi W/o Kanaka Apparao, Hindu, age 40 years, resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Chinni China Appalanaidu @ Innabbai,S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, age 69 yearls, resident of Venkatapuram village, via; Paravada, Thanam post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.V.R.Joga rao and Mr.R.Atchutharamaiah, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate of defendants. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the item No.6 of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants their men, agents servants there from; for future profits till the delivaery of the possession of item No.6 of schedule property as to be determined in a separate enquiry under order 20 R.12 of CPC; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. PW1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suilt is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW1/ Dt.9-6-2017/Panduri Satya Rao, S/o Simhachalam (chief affidavit only)
FOR DEFENDANT: NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 26-12-2013 Date of Filing: 26-12-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.255/2013
Between: Panduri Satyarao S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, age 69 years, retired MPDO, Sabbavaram, N/o Venkatapuram village Munagapaka Mandal, presently, residing at D.No.14-38-1/A, Plot No.303, Viswanadh Residency, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2. Plaintiff. And:
1. Panduri Kanaka Apparao,s/o Late Nookaiah, Hindu, age 45 years, Resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Panduri Ramalakshmi W/o Kanaka Apparao, Hindu, age 40 years, resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Chinni China Appalanaidu @ Innabbai,S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, age 69 yearls, resident of Venkatapuram village, via; Paravada, Thanam post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the item No.6 of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants their men, agents servants there from; for future profits till the delivaery of the possession of item No.6 of schedule property as to be determined in a separate enquiry under order 20 R.12 of CPC; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suilt for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is
Rs.10,000/- for relief of permanent injunction and Rs.1,20,000/- being 3/4th market value for relief of declaration and possession and CF of Rs.4,412/- is paid under Sec.26 (c) & 24(a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
Total value of item-6 property Rs. 1,60,000-00 3/4th of the Market value is Rs. 1,20,000-00
Notional value of items 1 to 5 Rs. 10,000-00
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri B.V.R.Joga rao and Mr.R.Atchutharamaiah, Advocates for plaintiff and of
Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate of defendants. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the suilt be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.221/2013
Between: Gulla Sreeram Murthy S/o Chellanna Dora, Hindu, age 33 years, cultivation, resident of Door No.3-16, Buddibanda village H/o Kovagunta village, Vommali Jagannadhapuram post, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Konathala Radhabhai, W/o Seetharam, Hindu, age years, House wife, resident of Door No.2-95, Sampathipuram village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Central Bank of India, Main branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Ch.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation on either side.Hence the suilt is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.05.2005 by directing thedefendant to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp paper and register the samek in respect of the plaint schedule property in favoudr of the plaintiff and to do all the acts necaessary to put the plaintiff in possession with such time as the court fixes, ilf the 1st defendant, fails to execute the regular sale deed, the court may execute the same at the costs of the plaintiffl and recover the same from thedefendant (b) for an alternative relief foir refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the 1st defendant and for costs of the suilt.
Costs not paid. PW1 called absent. No representation on either side.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIl
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of presentation:22-11-2013 Date of Filing :22-11-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.221/2013
Between: Gulla Sreeram Murthy S/o Chellanna Dora, Hindu, age 33 years, cultivation, resident of Door No.3-16, Buddibanda village H/o Kovagunta village, Vommali Jagannadhapuram post, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Konathala Radhabhai, W/o Seetharam, Hindu, age years, House wife, resident of Door No.2-95, Sampathipuram village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Central Bank of India, Main branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.05.2005 by directing thedefendant to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp paper and register the samek in respect of the plaint schedule property in favoudr of the plaintiff and to do all the acts necaessary to put the plaintiff in possession with such time as the court fixes, ilf the 1st defendant, fails to execute the regular sale deed, the court may execute the same at the costs of the plaintiffl and recover the same from thedefendant (b) for an alternative relief foir refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the 1st defendant and for costs of the suilt.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is
Rs.4,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.6,426/- is paid under Sec.39 of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri
Ch.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation on either side. Hence the suilt is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of Plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Prl.Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Anakapalle, dt.07-04-2018 From Sril S.Srinivasarao, To Prl.Senior Civil Judge, The Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Anakapalle VISAKHAPATNAM.
Honoured Madam
Sub:- Pauper suits-Statement showing the court fee awarded to the Government in pauper suits for the I quarter, 2018 ending by 31.03.2018. ***
I have the Honour to submit herewith the quarterly statement of pauper suits for the 1st quarter ending i.e. on 31.03.2018 relating to the Prl.Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Anakapalle for the period from 01-01-2018 to 31-03-2018.
Yours faithfully
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
Encl: Statement ANAKAPALLE
STATEMENT SHOWING THE REALIZATION OF COURT FEE IN PAUPER SUITS
RELATING TO PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT, ANAKAPALLE FOR THE
1ST QUARTER ENDING BY 31-03-2018.
S.No.Suit NumberDate ofAmount of C.F.Payable byWhen sent District decreeAwarded towhomCollector, GovernmentVisakhapatnam Dis.N.& Date. ---NIL---
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
Date of Presentatio:23-01-2014 Date of Filing: 24-01-2014
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.03/2014
Between:
Payala Jyothi, W/o Srilnivasu, C/o. Palli Rajeswara Rao, Hindu, age 24 years, House holdl dutiles, residing at 4-15. Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal,l Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And:
Payala Srilnivasu, S/o Rajeswara Rao, age 35 yealrs, Residing at Door No.3-4- 26/1, Telephone Exchange street, Narasingaraopeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Respondent
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-
Husband to directing the respondent to come to the house of the petitioner and live with him for discharging her conjugal obligations and for costs of the petition.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 is paid under Sch.II Art.I(vii) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar,K.Gangadhararao, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri V.Rajasekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called present.Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition in view of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Memo is recoraded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs
Given under my hand and theseal of this court, this the 22nd day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 30 th day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.3/2012
Between:
Pasupuletil Jyothi, W/o Chandrarao, Hindu, age 23 years, housewife, residing at D.No.9-47, C/o Kudirella Sanyasirao, Munagapaka village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And:
Pasupuleti Chandrarao,S/o Nooka Raju , Hindu, age 26 years, employee, Command Musician office, Head quarters Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base(P.O) D.Nop.15-7-12/2, Visakhapatnam-14.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriV.V.Jogayya and M.Srilnivasarao, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri A.S.V.Prasad, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called petitioner absent. Respondent is present. No representation for petitioner side .The counsel for the Respondent filed ecourts copy of orders in OP33/2012.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-husband lfor restitution of conjugal life of the petitio;ner with the rekskpondent, directing the respondent to laead happy marital lifle lwilth the petiltioner and lfor costs of the petition.
Objectio;nsl not filed. Both parties called. Petitioner absent. Respondent is present. No rsepresentation for petitioner side. The counsel for the
Respondent filed ecourts copy of orders in O.P.33/2012 on the file of Additional
Family Court, visakhapatnam allowing the application and granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under these circumstlances dthis petition is dilsmissed in view of the orders passed by Honourable in O.P.33/2012 abetween the same parties grant ldecree of divorce.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 30th day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Datae of Presentation:24-02-2012 Date of Filing:24-02-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 30 th day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.3/2012
Between: Pasupuletil Jyothi, W/o Chandrarao, Hindu, age 23 years, housewife, residing at D.No.9-47, C/o Kudirella Sanyasirao, Munagapaka village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And:
Pasupuleti Chandrarao,S/o Nooka Raju , Hindu, age 26 years, employee, Command Musician office, Head quarters Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base(P.O) D.Nop.15-7-12/2, Visakhapatnam-14.
Respondent
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-husband lfor restitution of conjugal life of the petitio;ner with the rekskpondent, directing the respondent to laead happy marital lifle lwilth the petiltioner and lfor costs of the petition.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 is paid under Art.I (vii) ,Sch.II of Sec.10 of
A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of SriV.V.Jogayya and M.Srilnivasarao, Advocates for petitioner and of
Sri A.S.V.Prasad, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called petitioner absent. Respondent is present. No representation for petitioner side .The counsel for the Respondent filed ecourts copy of orders in OP33/2012 on the file of Addl.Family Court, Visakhapatnam allowing the applickation and lgrantaing decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under these circumstances this petition is dismissed in view of the orders passed by the
Honourable Addl.Family Court, Visakhapatnam in OP33/2012 abetween the
same parties grant decree of divorce hence this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed
2) that there be no costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 30th day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER; FOR RESPONDENT:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 24 th day of October, 2017
HMOP.NO.49/2013
Between: Alla Swarulpa @ Varaha Lalitha Sawarupa,W/o Rama Chandra Prasad, Hindu, age 19 years, Household duties, residing at Door No.19-4-17, Buddha Prakasa Rao Naidu gari street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
Petitioner And:
Alla Rama Chandra Prasad, S/o China Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, physically handicapped, residing at Door No.50-83-10, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 16.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriBuddha Thrinadha Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.11 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 13.02.2013 due to non consummation of marriage as null and void and for costs of the petition.
Both parties calasled absent. No representation on either side .Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 24th day of October, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.03/2014
Between:
Payala Jyothi, W/o Srilnivasu, C/o. Palli Rajeswara Rao, Hindu, age 24 years, House holdl dutiles, residing at 4-15. Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal,l Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And:
Payala Srilnivasu, S/o Rajeswara Rao, age 35 yealrs, Residing at Door No.3-4- 26/1, Telephone Exchange street, Narasingaraopeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriK.Chandra Sekhar,K.Gangadhararao, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri V.Rajasekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called present.Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition in view of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Memo is recoraded and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-Husband to directing the respondent to come to the house of the petitioner and live with him for discharging her conjugal obligations and for costs of the petition.
Both parties called present. Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition inveiw of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 22nd day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 24 th day of October, 2017
HMOP.NO.49/2013
Between: Alla Swarulpa @ Varaha Lalitha Sawarupa,W/o Rama Chandra Prasad, Hindu, age 19 years, Household duties, residing at Door No.19-4-17, Buddha Prakasa Rao Naidu gari street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
Petitioner And:
Alla Rama Chandra Prasad, S/o China Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, physically handicapped, residing at Door No.50-83-10, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 16.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriBuddha Thrinadha Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.11 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 13.02.2013 due to non consummation of marriage as null and void and for costs of the petition.
Both parties calasled absent. No representation on either side .Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 24th day of October, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.03/2014
Between: Payala Jyothi, W/o Srilnivasu, C/o. Palli Rajeswara Rao, Hindu, age 24 years, House holdl dutiles, residing at 4-15. Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal,l Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And:
Payala Srilnivasu, S/o Rajeswara Rao, age 35 yealrs, Residing at Door No.3-4- 26/1, Telephone Exchange street, Narasingaraopeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriK.Chandra Sekhar,K.Gangadhararao, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri V.Rajasekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called present.Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition in view of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Memo is recoraded and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-Husband to directing the respondent to come to the house of the petitioner and live with him for discharging her conjugal obligations and for costs of the petition.
Both parties called present. Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition inveiw of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 22nd day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 24 th day of October, 2017
HMOP.NO.49/2013
Between: Alla Swarulpa @ Varaha Lalitha Sawarupa,W/o Rama Chandra Prasad, Hindu, age 19 years, Household duties, residing at Door No.19-4-17, Buddha Prakasa Rao Naidu gari street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
Petitioner And:
Alla Rama Chandra Prasad, S/o China Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, physically handicapped, residing at Door No.50-83-10, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 16.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriBuddha Thrinadha Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.11 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 13.02.2013 due to non consummation of marriage as null and void and for costs of the petition.
Both parties calasled absent. No representation on either side .Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 24th day of October, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:19-11-2013 Date of Filing:25-11-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 24 th day of October, 2017
HMOP.NO.49/2013
Between: Alla Swarulpa @ Varaha Lalitha Sawarupa,W/o Rama Chandra Prasad, Hindu, age 19 years, Household duties, residing at Door No.19-4-17, Buddha Prakasa Rao Naidu gari street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
Petitioner And:
Alla Rama Chandra Prasad, S/o China Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, physically handicapped, residing at Door No.50-83-10, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 16.
Respondent
Petition filed under Sec.11 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 13.02.2013 due to non consummation of marriage as null and void and for costs of the petition.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 ils paid under Sch.II Art.I (Vii) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of SriBuddha Thrinadha Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri
K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of thi court, this the 24th day of October, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDSENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 24 th day of October, 2017
HMOP.NO.49/2013
Between: Alla Swarulpa @ Varaha Lalitha Sawarupa,W/o Rama Chandra Prasad, Hindu, age 19 years, Household duties, residing at Door No.19-4-17, Buddha Prakasa Rao Naidu gari street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
Petitioner And:
Alla Rama Chandra Prasad, S/o China Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, physically handicapped, residing at Door No.50-83-10, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 16.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriBuddha Thrinadha Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.11 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 13.02.2013 due to non consummation of marriage as null and void and for costs of the petition.
Both parties calasled absent. No representation on either side .Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 24th day of October, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentatioin:22-11-2010 Date of Fililng: 22-11-2010
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 27 th day of December, 2017
LAOP.NO.125/2012 Between:
1) Sri Karaka Kalyanam S/o late Jaggunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram ,Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Karaka Sambhamurthy, S/o late Jagunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Claimants And:
Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition officer, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam Bayyavaram, Kasimkota, Visakhapatnam District.
Referring officer.
This is a reference made under Sec.30 &31 of Land Acquisition Act by the Special Tahasildar Land Acquisition Revenue Division Visakhapatnam for formation of Left canal to reservoir across Rangabolupgedda in Bayyavaram village for an extent of Ac.0.063/4 cents iln S.No.664/4B, 664/10/A ,Bayyavaram village of Kasimkota Mandal.
In this reference there are 2 (two) claimants.
The LAO deposited an amount of Rs.11,03,066-00 towards compensation amount for the Award No.22/2006 dated 20-12-2005 and the same was kept in
FDR of State Bank of India, Anakapalle.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in person and of Sri Asst.Government Pleader for Referring officer. Claimant called absent.
Claim statement not filed. No representation. Hence reference is closed and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that L.A.O.P petition be and thesame is hereby closed as claimant called absent No representation;
2) that there be no order as to costs.
Given under my handk and the seal of this court, this the 27th day of December, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR CLAIMANTS: FOR REFERING OFFICER;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 27 th day of December, 2017
LAOP.NO.125/2012 Between:
1) Sri Karaka Kalyanam S/o late Jaggunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram ,Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Karaka Sambhamurthy, S/o late Jagunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Claimants And:
Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition officer, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam Bayyavaram, Kasimkota, Visakhapatnam District.
Referring officer.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in person and of Sri Asst.Government Pleader for Referring officer. Claimant called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Hence reference ils closed and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a reference made under Sec.30 &31 of Land Acquisition Act by the Special Tahasildar Land Acquisition Revenue Division Visakhapatnam for formation of Left canal to reservoir across Rangabolupgedda in Bayyavaram village for an extent of Ac.0.063/4 cents iln S.No.664/4B, 664/10/A ,Bayyavaram village of Kasimkota Mandal.
In this reference there are 2 (two) claimants.
The LAO deposited an amount of Rs.11,03,066-00 towards compensation amount for the Award No.22/2006 dated 20-12-2005 and the same was kept in
FDR of State Bank of India, Anakapalle.
Claim statement not filed. Claimant called absent. No representation.
Perusal of record reveals the claimant present in person on 28.08.2012 thereafter matter ils posted for time to time for filing claim statement. So far no claim statement ils filled till today. Today also clailmant calaled absent. No representation. Hence reference is closed consign the record toi record room.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 27th day of December, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 5th day of January, 2018
SOP.NO.74/2017 Between: 1)Ganta Venkatesh,S/o late Neeladri Rao,lHilndu, age 21 years, unemployee, residing at D.No.3-3-69, NTR colony, Sirasapalli (village) Narasingaraopeta (PO) Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ganta Satyadevi,D/o Neeladri Rao, Hilndu, age 22 years, residing at D.No. 3-3-69, NTR colonyl, Sirasapalli village, Narasingaraopeta P.O. Visakhapatnam District. Petitioners And:
The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Visakha Steel City Depot, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam-5300046.
Respondant
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Apparao, Advocate for Petitioners. Petitioner called absent No representation and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1954.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners to issue succession certificate in favour of the petitioners to receive the amounts as shown in the schedule from the respondent and for other reliefs.
Petitioner called absent No representation hence petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 5th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:25-11-2017
Date of Filing:01-12-2017
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 5th day of January, 2018
SOP.NO.74/2017 Between: 1)Ganta Venkatesh,S/o late Neeladri Rao,lHilndu, age 21 years, unemployee, residing at D.No.3-3-69, NTR colony, Sirasapalli (village) Narasingaraopeta (PO) Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ganta Satyadevi,D/o Neeladri Rao, Hilndu, age 22 years, residing at D.No. 3-3-69, NTR colonyl, Sirasapalli village, Narasingaraopeta P.O. Visakhapatnam District. Petitioners And:
The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Visakha Steel City Depot, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam-5300046.
Respondant
This is a petition filed under 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1954.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners to issue succession certificate in favour of the petitioners to receive the amounts as shown in the schedule from the respondent and for other reliefs.
A court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Art.VII of Sch.I of APCF and SVAct.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.Apparao, Advocate for Petitioners. Petitioner called absent No representation and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 5th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:19-04-2014 Date of Filing:30-04-2014
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 19th day of January, 2018
HMOP.NO.26/2014
Between: Nanibilli Nookaraju,S/o late Baburao, Hindu, age 30 years, Driver, resident of Door No. Tegada village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner And:
Nanibilli Nagalakshmi,lW/o Nookaraju, Hindu, age 22 years, housewife, residing at C/o Pasupuleti Eswararao, Door No. Kandipudi villlage, Butchiyyapeta and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondant
This is a petition filed under Sec.13(1) (ia) and (ib) of H.M.Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners (a) for grant of decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent on 12.11.2011 on the ground of cruelty and desertion and for costs of the suit.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Art.IL (vii) Sch.II of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri K.S.Achari and Sri G.Krilshnaveni, Advocates for Petitioner and of Sri K.David, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent No representation on either side hence this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for defaualt;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 19th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 19th day of January, 2018
HMOP.NO.26/2014
Between: Nanibilli Nookaraju,S/o late Baburao, Hindu, age 30 years, Driver, resident of Door No. Tegada village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner And:
Nanibilli Nagalakshmi,lW/o Nookaraju, Hindu, age 22 years, housewife, residing at C/o Pasupuleti Eswararao, Door No. Kandipudi villlage, Butchiyyapeta and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondant
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.S.Achari and Sri G.Krilshnaveni, Advocates for Petitioner and of Sri K.David, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent No representation on either side hence this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Sec.13(1) (ia) and (ib) of H.M.Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners (a) for grant of decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent on 12.11.2011 on the ground of cruelty and desertion and for costs of the suit.
Both parties called absent No representation on either side hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:02-11-2005 Date of Filing:29-11-2005
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 31st day of August, 2017
I.P.No.13/2005 Between: Naga Manikyam wife of Tatayyalu, age 70 years, Hindu, No occupation, residing at Nagavamsam Veedhi, Anakapalle.
Petitioner. And:
1. Ravi Seshukumari, wife of Sreenivasarao, age 25 yearsl, Hindu, Household duties, residing at Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam-16.
2. Naga Laxmikantam, wife of Ramana,l age 35 years, Hindu, residing near Santabyalu, Vaddadi village, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Yelugula Ramana, son of Apparao, age 40 years, Allikhanudupalem, Anakapalle Mandal.
4. Rayi Bullemma, wife of Jagannadham, age 50 years, hindu, Lokavari veedhi, Anakapalle.
5.Nagumalla Sanyasamma, wife of Venkatarao, age 60 years, Hindu, Maturu village, Anakakpalle Mandal.
6.Kolluru Pramod Kumar, son of Narasingarao, age 35 years, Hindu, Main road,Anakapalle.
7.Palukuril Kamaraju, son of Sreeramamurthy,l age 35 years, Hindu, business, residing at Anjayya colony, Anakapalle.
Respondants.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents(a) to declare the petitioner as an insolvent and discharge her from her creditors and for costs of the petition.
A fixed court fees of Rs.50/- is paid on this petition under Sch.II.Article II of ACF and S.V.;Act. An amount of Rs.1500/- paid towards administrative charges and publication by way of challan No.2081, dated 28.10.2005.
This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri P.S.Kumar and Sri P.A.Narasimham, Advocates for Petitioner . As memo filed vide GR.No.1563/dt.07.07.2017 petitioner died and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the Insolvent petition be and the same is hereby closed as petitioner died;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( copy of petition A and B schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 31st day of August,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 31st day of August, 2017
I.P.No.13/2005 Between: Naga Manikyam wife of Tatayyalu, age 70 years, Hindu, No occupation, residing at Nagavamsam Veedhi, Anakapalle.
Petitioner. And:
1. Ravi Seshukumari, wife of Sreenivasarao, age 25 yearsl, Hindu, Household duties, residing at Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam-16.
2. Naga Laxmikantam, wife of Ramana,l age 35 years, Hindu, residing near Santabyalu, Vaddadi village, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Yelugula Ramana, son of Apparao, age 40 years, Allikhanudupalem, Anakapalle Mandal.
4. Rayi Bullemma, wife of Jagannadham, age 50 years, hindu, Lokavari veedhi, Anakapalle 5.Nagumalla Sanyasamma, wife of Venkatarao, age 60 years, Hindu, Maturu village, Anakakpalle Mandal. 6.Kolluru Pramod Kumar, son of Narasingarao, age 35 years, Hindu, Main road,Anakapalle. 7.Palukuril Kamaraju, son of Sreeramamurthy,l age 35 years, Hindu, business, residing at Anjayya colony, Anakapalle.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.S.Kumar and Sri P.A.Narasimham, Advocates for Petitioner . As memo filed vide GR.No.1563/dt.07.07.2017 petitioner died and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents(a) to declare the petitioner as an insolvent and discharge her from her creditors and for costs of the petition.
As memo filed vide GR.No.1563/dt.07.07.2017 as petitioner/insolvent died the petition is closed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 31st day of August, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 30-10-2012/15-11-2012 Date of Fililng: 15-11-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 22nd day of December,2017
I.P.No.04/2012 Between: 1.Vaddi Raju, S/o Appalaraju, age 35 years, residing at D.No.1-169, Ramakpuram colony, A.M.A.L.College road, Kothuru village andl panchayat, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner. And:
1. Afoz Bhanu,W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 35 years, Muslim, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C. Apartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle,Visakhapatnam District. 2.Md.Fathilma, husband’s namek not known to the petitioner, C/o Afoz Bhanu, W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 28 ayears, Hindu, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C.Akpartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Md. Ahamad, S/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 30 years, Muslim, residing at D.No. 7-48/1, Muslims steet, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4. M.Sameema, W/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 40 years, Muslim, residing at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5.Zameela Begum, D/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 25 years, Muslim, resilding at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar,l Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6.Shaik Halima, W/o Mohaddin,l age 30 years, Muslim care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, Pudimadaka raod, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. 7.Karim, father’s name not known to the petitioner,l age 28 years, Muslim, residing at care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, pudimadaka road, Anakapalle, Vilsakhapatnam Dilstrict.
8.A.Arjunarao, father’s name not known to the petitioner, age 32 years, Teacher in A.M.A.A. High School, residing at D.No.2-139, near K.L.N.Parlour, A.M.A.L. college road, Kothuru village, Anakapalle mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 9.Bobbili Anatha Lakshmi W/o Bobbilil Appalaraju, age 25 years, Hindu, Teacher,l residing at Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondants.
Petitioner to declare the as insolvent person ( indigent person) and discharge him from all of theliabilities and debts due to the respondents and or costs of the petition.
A court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Art.11(L)2(ili) of Sch.ILI of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri S.Narasingarao, I.R.Gangadhar, Advocates for Petitioner and petitioner called present filed memo not pressing the petition. Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the Insolvent petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( copy of petition A and B schedule hereto enclosed)
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of December,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 22nd day of December,2017
I.P.No.04/2012 Between: 1.Vaddi Raju, S/o Appalaraju, age 35 years, residing at D.No.1-169, Ramakpuram colony, A.M.A.L.College road, Kothuru village andl panchayat, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner. And:
1. Afoz Bhanu,W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 35 years, Muslim, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C. Apartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle,Visakhapatnam District. 2.Md.Fathilma, husband’s namek not known to the petitioner, C/o Afoz Bhanu, W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 28 ayears, Hindu, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C.Akpartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Md. Ahamad, S/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 30 years, Muslim, residing at D.No. 7-48/1, Muslims steet, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4. M.Sameema, W/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 40 years, Muslim, residing at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5.Zameela Begum, D/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 25 years, Muslim, resilding at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar,l Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6.Shaik Halima, W/o Mohaddin,l age 30 years, Muslim care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, Pudimadaka raod, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. 7.Karim, father’s name not known to the petitioner,l age 28 years, Muslim, residing at care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, pudimadaka road, Anakapalle, Vilsakhapatnam Dilstrict. 8.A.Arjunarao, father’s name not known to the petitioner, age 32 years, Teacher in A.M.A.A. High School, residing at D.No.2-139, near K.L.N.Parlour, A.M.A.L. college road, Kothuru village, Anakapalle mandal, Visakhapatnam
District. 9.Bobbili Anatha Lakshmi W/o Bobbilil Appalaraju, age 25 years, Hindu, Teacher,l residing at Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Narasingarao, I.R.Gangadhar, Advocates for Petitioner and petitioner called present filed memo not pressing the petition. Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petitioner to declare the as insolvent person ( indigent person) and discharge him from all of theliabilities and debts due to the respondents; and or costs of the suit.
Petitioner called present filed memo not pressing the petition. Heard.
Memo is recorded. This petition dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of December,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentatioin:21-03-2012
Date of Filing:09-04-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this thw 24th day of January, 2018.
I.P.No.01/2012 Between: 1.Doddi Naga Mophana Rao, S/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 32 years, cultivation, residing at Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal. 2.Polamarasetty Adi Murthy, S/o Apparao, Hindu, age 35 yealrs, cultivation, residing at Teacher’s colonyl, 3rd line, Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal.
3.Yellapu Sasi Bhushanam Rao, S/o late Kondala Rao, Hindu, age 47 years, residing at D.No.15-19-6, P.V.R.Naidu street, Opp. Women college, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli. Petitioners. And:
1.Yellapu Mangayyamma,W/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 48 years, business, residing at D.No.2-13-13,l Bo;ddeda vari veedhi,l Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalli. 2.Yellapu Venkata Nooka Apparao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, business, rest-do-
3. Yellapu Vani, W/o Venkata Nooka Appa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, business, C/o Pentakota Ramana, D.No.6-42-4, TVN colony,besides drivaer’s colony, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Adari Tilak, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, Business, residing at C/o Adari Rama Ra;o, Door No.14-13, Opp. Pada Gas Godown Court veedhi, Gandhinagaram, Anakapalli.
5. Yellapu Rama Krishna, S/o late Nooka Raju, Hindu, age 42 years, employee, residing at Door No.2-13-13 rest -do-.
Respondants.
This is a petition filed U/Sec.9 of provincial Insolvency Act praying to adjudge the respondent No.1 as insolvent ;(b) to appoint an interim receiver in respect of the estate of 1st respondent i.e. “B” schedule property; (c) to make an order directing the official receiver to take actual physical possession over the”B” schedule property.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 is paid thereon under Sectilon 20 ScheduleI
Art.II(a) of APCF and S.V.Act. Administrative charges of Rs.2000/- is paid vide challan No.6604 dated 29.03.2012.
This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Budha Trinadha Rao, Advocate for Petiltioners and No evidence isfiled the petitioners called absent No representatilon and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the Insolvency petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of petition A and B schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 24th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this thw 24th day of January, 2018.
I.P.No.01/2012 Between: 1.Doddi Naga Mophana Rao, S/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 32 years, cultivation, residing at Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal. 2.Polamarasetty Adi Murthy, S/o Apparao, Hindu, age 35 yealrs, cultivation, residing at Teacher’s colonyl, 3rd line, Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal.
3.Yellapu Sasi Bhushanam Rao, S/o late Kondala Rao, Hindu, age 47 years, residing at D.No.15-19-6, P.V.R.Naidu street, Opp. Women college, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli. Petitioners. And:
1.Yellapu Mangayyamma,W/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 48 years, business, residing at D.No.2-13-13,l Bo;ddeda vari veedhi,l Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalli. 2.Yellapu Venkata Nooka Apparao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, business, rest-do-
3. Yellapu Vani, W/o Venkata Nooka Appa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, business, C/o Pentakota Ramana, D.No.6-42-4, TVN colony,besides drivaer’s colony, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Adari Tilak, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, Business, residing at C/o Adari Rama Ra;o, Door No.14-13, Opp. Pada Gas Godown Court veedhi, Gandhinagaram, Anakapalli.
5. Yellapu Rama Krishna, S/o late Nooka Raju, Hindu, age 42 years, employee, residing at Door No.2-13-13 rest -do-.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Budha Trinadha Rao, Advocate for Petiltioners and No evidence isfiled the petitioners called absent No representatilon and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed U/Sec.9 of provincial Insolvency Act praying to adjudge the respondent No.1 as insolvent ;(b) to appoint an interim receiver in respect of the estate of 1st respondent i.e. “B” schedule property; (c) to make an order directing the official receiver to take actual physical possession over the”B” schedule property.
No evidence is filed the petitioner called absent No representation. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 20-10-2014 Date of Filing:20-04-2014
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.263/2014
Between: Penmetsa Vishnukumar Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju, age 53 years, residing at Plot No.A-19, D.No.50-104-1/9, Seeethammadhara N.E.Layout, Visakhapatnam-13. Plaintiff. And:
1.Karri Bangarunaidu S/o Ramunaidu, age 52 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Karri Ramprasad S/o Ramunaidu, age 44 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
Suit filed by the plaintilff against the defendants(a) to pass a decree to directilng the defendants to execute the register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaintk kschedule property interms of the agreement of sale executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff within time fixed by the court (b) in case if the defendants fail to execute and register a sale deed, the court may itself execute and register a sale deed for aand on behalf of the defendants in respect of theplailant schedule at the expenses of the plaintiff
(c) to put the plaiantiff’s in possessilon of the plailnt schedule after evicting the defendants therefrom (d) alternatively, if the court feels that for any reason, the relief of specific performance could not be awarded, directing the defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,24,160/- paid by the plaintiff under the agreement of sale dtogether with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the agreement of sale till date of full land final reliazation and for costs of the suilt.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is valued at
Rs.5,24,160-00 and a court fee of Rs.7726/- is being paid under Sec.39, r/w
Sch.I Art.I (b) & (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi and Sri V.Viswanadham,Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri
M.Srinivasarao and M.V.R.Bhupathirao, Advocates for 1st defendant and of Sri
S.P.Naidu and R.Appalanaidu, Advocates for 2nd defendant . Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit claim. Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 01st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.263/2014
Between: Penmetsa Vishnukumar Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju, age 53 years,residing at Plot No.A-19, D.No.50-104-1/9, Seeethammadhara N.E.Layout, Visakhapatnam-13. Plaintiff. And:
1.Karri Bangarunaidu S/o Ramunaidu, age 52 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Karri Ramprasad S/o Ramunaidu, age 44 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi and Sri V.Viswanadham,Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri M.Srinivasarao and M.V.R.Bhupathirao, Advocates for 1st defendant and of Sri S.P.Naidu and R.Appalanaidu, Advocates for 2nd defendant . Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit claim. Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintilff against the defendants(a) to pass a decree to directilng the defendants to execute the register a sale deed iln favour of the plailntiff in respect of the plaintk kschedule property ilnterms of the agreement of sale executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff withiln time fixed by the court (b) in case if the defendants fail to execute and register a sale deed, the court may itself execute and register a sale deed for aand on behalf of the defendants in respect of theplailant schedule at the expenses of the plaintiff (c) to put the plaiantiff’s in possessilon of the plailnt schedule after evicting the defendants therefrom (d) alternatively, if the court feels that for any reason, the relief of specific performance could not be awarded, directing the defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,24,160/- paid by the plaintiff under the agreement of sale dtogether with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the agreement of sale till date of full land final reliazattion and for costs of the suilt.
Plaintiff filed a memo not press the suit claim as matter was settled out of court. Hence memo is recorded the suilt is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.199/2012
Between: Vennela Pydamma,W/o Somulu, Hindu, age 65 years, household duties, resildilng at D.No.8-4, Mettapalem village, lH/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Paraawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Eerla Sreeramulu,S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 52 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.7-56,Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steet project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
2.Eerla Suryanarayana, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 50 years, cultivation, residilng at D.No.7-55, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
3.Eerla Vonumulu, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 48 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.30-71-1, Appikonda RH colonyll, Vadlapudi, Gajuwakal Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
4. Kundrapu Somulamma, W/o Mutyalu, Hindu, age 62 years, housewife, residing at D.No.30-7-1, Appikonda RH colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
5.Kundrapu Simhachalam W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 86 years, residing at Door No.7-5, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project office, Visakhapatnam-31.
6. Geddam Kpentamma, W/o Simhachalam, age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.5-4, Hastinapuram, H/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Ramineni Venkateswararao, S/o Basavayya, Hindu, age 45 years, business, resilding at D.No.10-32-6, Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya and Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.7 and defendants 1,3,4,6 remind exparte and suit against defendant 2 and 5 dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties at metes and bounds into seven equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and such equal shares dto thedefendants 1 to 6, and deliver separate possession ofk such share so allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 on converting the joint possession into separate possession; for profits that can be determined by way of separate application; and for costs of the suit.
PW.1 called absent No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 31st day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFF:-
P.W.1/ dt.8.12.2017 - Vennela Pydamma W/o Somulu.(Chief examination only)
FOR DEFENDANT:- NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 16-08-2012
Date of Filing:16-08-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.199/2012
Between: Vennela Pydamma,W/o Somulu, Hindu, age 65 years, household duties, resildilng at D.No.8-4, Mettapalem village, lH/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Paraawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Eerla Sreeramulu,S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 52 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.7-56, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steet project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
2.Eerla Suryanarayana, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 50 years, cultivation, residilng at D.No.7-55, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
3.Eerla Vonumulu, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 48 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.30-71-1, Appikonda RH colonyll, Vadlapudi, Gajuwakal Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
4. Kundrapu Somulamma, W/o Mutyalu, Hindu, age 62 years, housewife, residing at D.No.30-7-1, Appikonda RH colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
5.Kundrapu Simhachalam W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 86 years, residing at Door No.7-5, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project office, Visakhapatnam-31.
6. Geddam Kpentamma, W/o Simhachalam, age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.5-4, Hastinapuram, H/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Ramineni Venkateswararao, S/o Basavayya, Hindu, age 45 years, business, resilding at D.No.10-32-6, Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
Suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties at metes and bounds into seven equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and such equal shares dto thedefendants 1 to 6, and deliver separate possession ofk such share so allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 on converting the joint possession into separate possession; for profits that can be determined by way of separate application; and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction of this court
Valuel of the plaint schedule property consisting of Ac.5.00 cents and @
Rs.15,00,000/- per acre as per basic value register Rs. 16,05,000-00
Plaintiff’s 1/7th share Rs. 10,71,428-00 3/4th value share Rs. 8,03,571-00
C.F. of Rs.10,826-00 is payable, but a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid under
Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya and Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri
A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.7 and defendants 1,3,4,6 remind exparte and suit against defendant 2 and 5 dismissed for default and this Court doth order and ;
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and theseal of this court, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.189/2017
Between: Chekuri Ramaraju S/o Venkata Raju @ Venkatarao, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, resident of D.No.1-38, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Gogula Srinivas S/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, age 49 years, resident of D.No.1- 113, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram & Sri BSVRajagopal,Advocates for plaintiff. Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit . Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery oif
Rs.6,84,333/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note
dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of
plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
I.A59 /2018 is allowed. Accordingly the matter is advanced to today from 23.02.2018.
The plaintiff is present. Plaintiff filed memo not pressing the suit as matter was settled out of court. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly suit is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:19-12-2017
Date of Filing:19-12-2017
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.189/2017
Between: Chekuri Ramaraju S/o Venkata Raju @ Venkatarao, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, resident of D.No.1-38, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Gogula Srinivas S/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, age 49 years, resident of D.No.1- 113, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery oif
Rs.6,84,333/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note
dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of
plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is
Rs.6,84,333/- and a court fee of Rs.9,326/- is paid under Section 20 r/w Art.I(a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram & Sri B.S.V.Rajagopal, Advocates for plaintiff. Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit . Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs;
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.255/2013
Between: Panduri Satyarao S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, age 69 years, retired MPDO, Sabbavaram, N/o Venkatapuram village Munagapaka Mandal, presently, residing at D.No.14-38-1/A, Plot No.303, Viswanadh Residency, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2. Plaintiff. And:
1. Panduri Kanaka Apparao,s/o Late Nookaiah, Hindu, age 45 years, Resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Panduri Ramalakshmi W/o Kanaka Apparao, Hindu, age 40 years, resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Chinni China Appalanaidu @ Innabbai,S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, age 69 yearls, resident of Venkatapuram village, via; Paravada, Thanam post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.V.R.Joga rao and Mr.R.Atchutharamaiah, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate of defendants. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the item No.6 of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants their men, agents servants there from; for future profits till the delivaery of the possession of item No.6 of schedule property as to be determined in a separate enquiry under order 20 R.12 of CPC; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. PW1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suilt is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW1/ Dt.9-6-2017/Panduri Satya Rao, S/o Simhachalam (chief affidavit only)
FOR DEFENDANT: NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 26-12-2013 Date of Filing: 26-12-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.255/2013
Between: Panduri Satyarao S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, age 69 years, retired MPDO, Sabbavaram, N/o Venkatapuram village Munagapaka Mandal, presently, residing at D.No.14-38-1/A, Plot No.303, Viswanadh Residency, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2. Plaintiff. And:
1. Panduri Kanaka Apparao,s/o Late Nookaiah, Hindu, age 45 years, Resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Panduri Ramalakshmi W/o Kanaka Apparao, Hindu, age 40 years, resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Chinni China Appalanaidu @ Innabbai,S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, age 69 yearls, resident of Venkatapuram village, via; Paravada, Thanam post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the item No.6 of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants their men, agents servants there from; for future profits till the delivaery of the possession of item No.6 of schedule property as to be determined in a separate enquiry under order 20 R.12 of CPC; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suilt for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is
Rs.10,000/- for relief of permanent injunction and Rs.1,20,000/- being 3/4th market value for relief of declaration and possession and CF of Rs.4,412/- is paid under Sec.26 (c) & 24(a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
Total value of item-6 property Rs. 1,60,000-00 3/4th of the Market value is Rs. 1,20,000-00
Notional value of items 1 to 5 Rs. 10,000-00
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri B.V.R.Joga rao and Mr.R.Atchutharamaiah, Advocates for plaintiff and of
Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate of defendants. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the suilt be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.221/2013
Between: Gulla Sreeram Murthy S/o Chellanna Dora, Hindu, age 33 years, cultivation, resident of Door No.3-16, Buddibanda village H/o Kovagunta village, Vommali Jagannadhapuram post, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Konathala Radhabhai, W/o Seetharam, Hindu, age years, House wife, resident of Door No.2-95, Sampathipuram village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Central Bank of India, Main branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Ch.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation on either side.Hence the suilt is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.05.2005 by directing thedefendant to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp paper and register the samek in respect of the plaint schedule property in favoudr of the plaintiff and to do all the acts necaessary to put the plaintiff in possession with such time as the court fixes, ilf the 1st defendant, fails to execute the regular sale deed, the court may execute the same at the costs of the plaintiffl and recover the same from thedefendant (b) for an alternative relief foir refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the 1st defendant and for costs of the suilt.
Costs not paid. PW1 called absent. No representation on either side.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIl
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of presentation:22-11-2013 Date of Filing :22-11-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.221/2013
Between: Gulla Sreeram Murthy S/o Chellanna Dora, Hindu, age 33 years, cultivation, resident of Door No.3-16, Buddibanda village H/o Kovagunta village, Vommali Jagannadhapuram post, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Konathala Radhabhai, W/o Seetharam, Hindu, age years, House wife, resident of Door No.2-95, Sampathipuram village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Central Bank of India, Main branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its
Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.05.2005 by directing thedefendant to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp paper and register the samek in respect of the plaint schedule property in favoudr of the plaintiff and to do all the acts necaessary to put the plaintiff in possession with such time as the court fixes, ilf the 1st defendant, fails to execute the regular sale deed, the court may execute the same at the costs of the plaintiffl and recover the same from thedefendant (b) for an alternative relief foir refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the 1st defendant and for costs of the suilt.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is
Rs.4,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.6,426/- is paid under Sec.39 of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri
Ch.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation on either side. Hence the suilt is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of Plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:22-11-2010 Date of Filing: 22-11-2010
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle
Wednesday, this the 27 th day of December, 2017
LAOP.NO.125/2012 Between:
1) Sri Karaka Kalyanam S/o late Jaggunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram ,Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Karaka Sambhamurthy, S/o late Jagunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Claimants And:
Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition officer, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam Bayyavaram, Kasimkota, Visakhapatnam District.
Referring officer.
This is a reference made under Sec.30 &31 of Land Acquisition Act by the Special Tahasildar Land Acquisition Revenue Division Visakhapatnam for formation of Left canal to reservoir across Rangabolupgedda in Bayyavaram village for an extent of Ac.0.063/4 cents iln S.No.664/4B, 664/10/A ,Bayyavaram village of Kasimkota Mandal.
In this reference there are 2 (two) claimants.
The LAO deposited an amount of Rs.11,03,066-00 towards compensation amount for the Award No.22/2006 dated 20-12-2005 and the same was kept in
FDR of State Bank of India, Anakapalle.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in person and of Sri Asst.Government Pleader for Referring officer. Claimant called absent.
Claim statement not filed. No representation. Hence reference is closed and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that L.A.O.P petition be and the same is hereby closed as claimant called absent No representation;
2) that there be no order as to costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 27th day of December, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR CLAIMANTS: FOR REFERING OFFICER;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 27 th day of December, 2017
LAOP.NO.125/2012 Between:
1) Sri Karaka Kalyanam S/o late Jaggunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram ,Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Karaka Sambhamurthy, S/o late Jagunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Claimants And:
Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition officer, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam Bayyavaram, Kasimkota, Visakhapatnam District.
Referring officer.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in person and of Sri Asst.Government Pleader for Referring officer. Claimant called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Hence reference ils closed and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a reference made under Sec.30 &31 of Land Acquisition Act by the Special Tahasildar Land Acquisition Revenue Division Visakhapatnam for formation of Left canal to reservoir across Rangabolupgedda in Bayyavaram village for an extent of Ac.0.063/4 cents iln S.No.664/4B, 664/10/A ,Bayyavaram village of Kasimkota Mandal.
In this reference there are 2 (two) claimants.
The LAO deposited an amount of Rs.11,03,066-00 towards compensation amount for the Award No.22/2006 dated 20-12-2005 and the same was kept in
FDR of State Bank of India, Anakapalle.
Claim statement not filed. Claimant called absent. No representation.
Perusal of record reveals the claimant present in person on 28.08.2012 thereafter matter ils posted for time to time for filing claim statement. So far no claim statement ils filled till today. Today also clailmant calaled absent. No representation. Hence reference is closed consign the record toi record room.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 27th day of December, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 5th day of January, 2018
SOP.NO.74/2017 Between: 1)Ganta Venkatesh,S/o late Neeladri Rao,lHilndu, age 21 years, unemployee, residing at D.No.3-3-69, NTR colony, Sirasapalli (village) Narasingaraopeta (PO) Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ganta Satyadevi,D/o Neeladri Rao, Hilndu, age 22 years, residing at D.No. 3-3-69, NTR colonyl, Sirasapalli village, Narasingaraopeta P.O. Visakhapatnam District. Petitioners And:
The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Visakha Steel City Depot, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam-5300046.
Respondant
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Apparao, Advocate for Petitioners. Petitioner called absent No representation and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1954.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners to issue succession certificate in favour of the petitioners to receive the amounts as shown in the schedule from the respondent and for other reliefs.
Petitioner called absent No representation hence petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 5th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:25-11-2017
Date of Filing:01-12-2017
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 5th day of January, 2018
SOP.NO.74/2017 Between: 1)Ganta Venkatesh,S/o late Neeladri Rao,lHilndu, age 21 years, unemployee, residing at D.No.3-3-69, NTR colony, Sirasapalli (village) Narasingaraopeta (PO) Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ganta Satyadevi,D/o Neeladri Rao, Hilndu, age 22 years, residing at D.No. 3-3-69, NTR colonyl, Sirasapalli village, Narasingaraopeta P.O. Visakhapatnam District. Petitioners And:
The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Visakha Steel City Depot, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam-5300046.
Respondant
This is a petition filed under 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1954.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners to issue succession certificate in favour of the petitioners to receive the amounts as shown in the schedule from the respondent and for other reliefs.
A court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Art.VII of Sch.I of APCF and SVAct.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.Apparao, Advocate for Petitioners. Petitioner called absent No representation and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 5th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:19-04-2014 Date of Filing:30-04-2014
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 19th day of January, 2018
HMOP.NO.26/2014
Between: Nanibilli Nookaraju,S/o late Baburao, Hindu, age 30 years, Driver, resident of Door No. Tegada village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner And:
Nanibilli Nagalakshmi,lW/o Nookaraju, Hindu, age 22 years, housewife, residing at C/o Pasupuleti Eswararao, Door No. Kandipudi villlage, Butchiyyapeta and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondant
This is a petition filed under Sec.13(1) (ia) and (ib) of H.M.Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners (a) for grant of decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent on 12.11.2011 on the ground of cruelty and desertion and for costs of the suit.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Art.IL (vii) Sch.II of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri K.S.Achari and Sri G.Krilshnaveni, Advocates for Petitioner and of Sri K.David, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent No representation on either side hence this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for defaualt;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 19th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 19th day of January, 2018
HMOP.NO.26/2014
Between: Nanibilli Nookaraju,S/o late Baburao, Hindu, age 30 years, Driver, resident of Door No. Tegada village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner And:
Nanibilli Nagalakshmi,lW/o Nookaraju, Hindu, age 22 years, housewife, residing at C/o Pasupuleti Eswararao, Door No. Kandipudi villlage, Butchiyyapeta and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondant
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.S.Achari and Sri G.Krilshnaveni, Advocates for Petitioner and of Sri K.David, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent No representation on either side hence this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Sec.13(1) (ia) and (ib) of H.M.Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners (a) for grant of decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent on 12.11.2011 on the ground of cruelty and desertion and for costs of the suit.
Both parties called absent No representation on either side hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:02-11-2005 Date of Filing:29-11-2005
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 31st day of August, 2017
I.P.No.13/2005 Between: Naga Manikyam wife of Tatayyalu, age 70 years, Hindu, No occupation, residing at Nagavamsam Veedhi, Anakapalle.
Petitioner. And:
1. Ravi Seshukumari, wife of Sreenivasarao, age 25 yearsl, Hindu, Household duties, residing at Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam-16.
2. Naga Laxmikantam, wife of Ramana,l age 35 years, Hindu, residing near Santabyalu, Vaddadi village, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Yelugula Ramana, son of Apparao, age 40 years, Allikhanudupalem, Anakapalle Mandal.
4. Rayi Bullemma, wife of Jagannadham, age 50 years, hindu, Lokavari veedhi, Anakapalle.
5.Nagumalla Sanyasamma, wife of Venkatarao, age 60 years, Hindu, Maturu village, Anakakpalle Mandal.
6.Kolluru Pramod Kumar, son of Narasingarao, age 35 years, Hindu, Main road,Anakapalle.
7.Palukuril Kamaraju, son of Sreeramamurthy,l age 35 years, Hindu, business, residing at Anjayya colony, Anakapalle.
Respondants.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents(a) to declare the petitioner as an insolvent and discharge her from her creditors and for costs of the petition.
A fixed court fees of Rs.50/- is paid on this petition under Sch.II.Article II of ACF and S.V.;Act. An amount of Rs.1500/- paid towards administrative charges and publication by way of challan No.2081, dated 28.10.2005.
This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri P.S.Kumar and Sri P.A.Narasimham, Advocates for Petitioner . As memo filed vide GR.No.1563/dt.07.07.2017 petitioner died and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the Insolvent petition be and the same is hereby closed as petitioner died;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( copy of petition A and B schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 31st day of August,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 31st day of August, 2017
I.P.No.13/2005 Between: Naga Manikyam wife of Tatayyalu, age 70 years, Hindu, No occupation, residing at Nagavamsam Veedhi, Anakapalle.
Petitioner. And:
1. Ravi Seshukumari, wife of Sreenivasarao, age 25 yearsl, Hindu, Household duties, residing at Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam-16.
2. Naga Laxmikantam, wife of Ramana,l age 35 years, Hindu, residing near Santabyalu, Vaddadi village, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Yelugula Ramana, son of Apparao, age 40 years, Allikhanudupalem, Anakapalle Mandal.
4. Rayi Bullemma, wife of Jagannadham, age 50 years, hindu, Lokavari veedhi, Anakapalle 5.Nagumalla Sanyasamma, wife of Venkatarao, age 60 years, Hindu, Maturu village, Anakakpalle Mandal. 6.Kolluru Pramod Kumar, son of Narasingarao, age 35 years, Hindu, Main road,Anakapalle. 7.Palukuril Kamaraju, son of Sreeramamurthy,l age 35 years, Hindu, business, residing at Anjayya colony, Anakapalle.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.S.Kumar and Sri P.A.Narasimham, Advocates for Petitioner . As memo filed vide GR.No.1563/dt.07.07.2017 petitioner died and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents(a) to declare the petitioner as an insolvent and discharge her from her creditors and for costs of the petition.
As memo filed vide GR.No.1563/dt.07.07.2017 as petitioner/insolvent died the petition is closed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 31st day of August, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 30-10-2012/15-11-2012 Date of Fililng: 15-11-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 22nd day of December,2017
I.P.No.04/2012 Between: 1.Vaddi Raju, S/o Appalaraju, age 35 years, residing at D.No.1-169, Ramakpuram colony, A.M.A.L.College road, Kothuru village andl panchayat, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner. And:
1. Afoz Bhanu,W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 35 years, Muslim, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C. Apartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle,Visakhapatnam District. 2.Md.Fathilma, husband’s namek not known to the petitioner, C/o Afoz Bhanu, W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 28 ayears, Hindu, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C.Akpartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Md. Ahamad, S/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 30 years, Muslim, residing at D.No. 7-48/1, Muslims steet, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal,
Visakhapatnam District.
4. M.Sameema, W/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 40 years, Muslim, residing at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5.Zameela Begum, D/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 25 years, Muslim, resilding at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar,l Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6.Shaik Halima, W/o Mohaddin,l age 30 years, Muslim care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, Pudimadaka raod, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. 7.Karim, father’s name not known to the petitioner,l age 28 years, Muslim, residing at care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, pudimadaka road, Anakapalle, Vilsakhapatnam Dilstrict. 8.A.Arjunarao, father’s name not known to the petitioner, age 32 years, Teacher in A.M.A.A. High School, residing at D.No.2-139, near K.L.N.Parlour, A.M.A.L. college road, Kothuru village, Anakapalle mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 9.Bobbili Anatha Lakshmi W/o Bobbilil Appalaraju, age 25 years, Hindu, Teacher,l residing at Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondants.
Petitioner to declare the as insolvent person ( indigent person) and discharge him from all of theliabilities and debts due to the respondents and or costs of the petition.
A court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Art.11(L)2(ili) of Sch.ILI of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri S.Narasingarao, I.R.Gangadhar, Advocates for Petitioner and petitioner called present filed memo not pressing the petition. Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the Insolvent petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( copy of petition A and B schedule hereto enclosed)
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of December,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 22nd day of December,2017
I.P.No.04/2012 Between: 1.Vaddi Raju, S/o Appalaraju, age 35 years, residing at D.No.1-169, Ramakpuram colony, A.M.A.L.College road, Kothuru village andl panchayat, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner. And:
1. Afoz Bhanu,W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 35 years, Muslim, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C. Apartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle,Visakhapatnam District. 2.Md.Fathilma, husband’s namek not known to the petitioner, C/o Afoz Bhanu, W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 28 ayears, Hindu, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C.Akpartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Md. Ahamad, S/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 30 years, Muslim, residing at D.No. 7-48/1, Muslims steet, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4. M.Sameema, W/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 40 years, Muslim, residing at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal,
Visakhapatnam District. 5.Zameela Begum, D/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 25 years, Muslim, resilding at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar,l Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6.Shaik Halima, W/o Mohaddin,l age 30 years, Muslim care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, Pudimadaka raod, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. 7.Karim, father’s name not known to the petitioner,l age 28 years, Muslim, residing at care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, pudimadaka road, Anakapalle, Vilsakhapatnam Dilstrict. 8.A.Arjunarao, father’s name not known to the petitioner, age 32 years, Teacher in A.M.A.A. High School, residing at D.No.2-139, near K.L.N.Parlour, A.M.A.L. college road, Kothuru village, Anakapalle mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 9.Bobbili Anatha Lakshmi W/o Bobbilil Appalaraju, age 25 years, Hindu, Teacher,l residing at Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Narasingarao, I.R.Gangadhar, Advocates for Petitioner and petitioner called present filed memo not pressing the petition. Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petitioner to declare the as insolvent person ( indigent person) and discharge him from all of theliabilities and debts due to the respondents; and or costs of the suit.
Petitioner called present filed memo not pressing the petition. Heard.
Memo is recorded. This petition dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of December,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentatioin:21-03-2012
Date of Filing:09-04-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this thw 24th day of January, 2018.
I.P.No.01/2012 Between: 1.Doddi Naga Mophana Rao, S/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 32 years, cultivation, residing at Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal. 2.Polamarasetty Adi Murthy, S/o Apparao, Hindu, age 35 yealrs, cultivation, residing at Teacher’s colonyl, 3rd line, Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal.
3.Yellapu Sasi Bhushanam Rao, S/o late Kondala Rao, Hindu, age 47 years, residing at D.No.15-19-6, P.V.R.Naidu street, Opp. Women college, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli. Petitioners. And:
1.Yellapu Mangayyamma,W/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 48 years, business, residing at D.No.2-13-13,l Bo;ddeda vari veedhi,l Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalli. 2.Yellapu Venkata Nooka Apparao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, business, rest-do-
3. Yellapu Vani, W/o Venkata Nooka Appa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, business, C/o Pentakota Ramana, D.No.6-42-4, TVN colony,besides drivaer’s colony, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Adari Tilak, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, Business, residing at C/o Adari Rama Ra;o, Door No.14-13, Opp. Pada Gas Godown Court veedhi, Gandhinagaram, Anakapalli.
5. Yellapu Rama Krishna, S/o late Nooka Raju, Hindu, age 42 years, employee, residing at Door No.2-13-13 rest -do-.
Respondants.
This is a petition filed U/Sec.9 of provincial Insolvency Act praying to adjudge the respondent No.1 as insolvent ;(b) to appoint an interim receiver in respect of the estate of 1st respondent i.e. “B” schedule property; (c) to make an order directing the official receiver to take actual physical possession over the”B” schedule property.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 is paid thereon under Sectilon 20 ScheduleI
Art.II(a) of APCF and S.V.Act. Administrative charges of Rs.2000/- is paid vide challan No.6604 dated 29.03.2012.
This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Budha Trinadha Rao, Advocate for Petiltioners and No evidence isfiled the petitioners called absent No representatilon and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the Insolvency petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of petition A and B schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 24th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this thw 24th day of January, 2018.
I.P.No.01/2012 Between: 1.Doddi Naga Mophana Rao, S/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 32 years, cultivation, residing at Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal. 2.Polamarasetty Adi Murthy, S/o Apparao, Hindu, age 35 yealrs, cultivation, residing at Teacher’s colonyl, 3rd line, Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal.
3.Yellapu Sasi Bhushanam Rao, S/o late Kondala Rao, Hindu, age 47 years, residing at D.No.15-19-6, P.V.R.Naidu street, Opp. Women college, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli. Petitioners. And:
1.Yellapu Mangayyamma,W/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 48 years, business, residing at D.No.2-13-13,l Bo;ddeda vari veedhi,l Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalli. 2.Yellapu Venkata Nooka Apparao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, business, rest-do-
3. Yellapu Vani, W/o Venkata Nooka Appa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, business, C/o Pentakota Ramana, D.No.6-42-4, TVN colony,besides drivaer’s colony, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Adari Tilak, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, Business, residing at C/o Adari Rama Ra;o, Door No.14-13, Opp. Pada Gas Godown Court veedhi, Gandhinagaram, Anakapalli.
5. Yellapu Rama Krishna, S/o late Nooka Raju, Hindu, age 42 years, employee, residing at Door No.2-13-13 rest -do-.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Budha Trinadha Rao, Advocate for Petiltioners and No evidence isfiled the petitioners called absent No representatilon and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed U/Sec.9 of provincial Insolvency Act praying to adjudge the respondent No.1 as insolvent ;(b) to appoint an interim receiver in respect of the estate of 1st respondent i.e. “B” schedule property; (c) to make an order directing the official receiver to take actual physical possession over the”B” schedule property.
No evidence is filed the petitioner called absent No representation. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 20-10-2014 Date of Filing:20-04-2014
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.263/2014
Between: Penmetsa Vishnukumar Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju, age 53 years, residing at Plot No.A-19, D.No.50-104-1/9, Seeethammadhara N.E.Layout, Visakhapatnam-13. Plaintiff.
And:
1.Karri Bangarunaidu S/o Ramunaidu, age 52 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Karri Ramprasad S/o Ramunaidu, age 44 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
Suit filed by the plaintilff against the defendants(a) to pass a decree to directilng the defendants to execute the register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaintk kschedule property interms of the agreement of sale executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff within time fixed by the court (b) in case if the defendants fail to execute and register a sale deed, the court may itself execute and register a sale deed for aand on behalf of the defendants in respect of theplailant schedule at the expenses of the plaintiff
(c) to put the plaiantiff’s in possessilon of the plailnt schedule after evicting the defendants therefrom (d) alternatively, if the court feels that for any reason, the relief of specific performance could not be awarded, directing the defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,24,160/- paid by the plaintiff under the agreement of sale dtogether with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the agreement of sale till date of full land final reliazation and for costs of the suilt.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is valued at
Rs.5,24,160-00 and a court fee of Rs.7726/- is being paid under Sec.39, r/w
Sch.I Art.I (b) & (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi and Sri V.Viswanadham,Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri
M.Srinivasarao and M.V.R.Bhupathirao, Advocates for 1st defendant and of Sri
S.P.Naidu and R.Appalanaidu, Advocates for 2nd defendant . Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit claim. Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 01st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.263/2014
Between:
Penmetsa Vishnukumar Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju, age 53 years,residing at Plot No.A-19, D.No.50-104-1/9, Seeethammadhara N.E.Layout, Visakhapatnam-13. Plaintiff. And:
1.Karri Bangarunaidu S/o Ramunaidu, age 52 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Karri Ramprasad S/o Ramunaidu, age 44 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi and Sri V.Viswanadham,Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri M.Srinivasarao and M.V.R.Bhupathirao, Advocates for 1st defendant and of Sri S.P.Naidu and R.Appalanaidu, Advocates for 2nd defendant . Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit claim. Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintilff against the defendants(a) to pass a decree to directilng the defendants to execute the register a sale deed iln favour of the plailntiff in respect of the plaintk kschedule property ilnterms of the agreement of sale executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff withiln time fixed by the court (b) in case if the defendants fail to execute and register a sale deed, the court may itself execute and register a sale deed for aand on behalf of the defendants in respect of theplailant schedule at the expenses of the plaintiff (c) to put the plaiantiff’s in possessilon of the plailnt schedule after evicting the defendants therefrom (d) alternatively, if the court feels that for any reason, the relief of specific performance could not be awarded, directing the defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,24,160/- paid by the plaintiff under the agreement of sale dtogether with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the agreement of sale till date of full land final reliazattion and for costs of the suilt.
Plaintiff filed a memo not press the suit claim as matter was settled out of court. Hence memo is recorded the suilt is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.199/2012
Between: Vennela Pydamma,W/o Somulu, Hindu, age 65 years, household duties, resildilng at D.No.8-4, Mettapalem village, lH/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Paraawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Eerla Sreeramulu,S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 52 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.7-56,Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steet project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
2.Eerla Suryanarayana, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 50 years, cultivation, residilng at D.No.7-55, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
3.Eerla Vonumulu, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 48 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.30-71-1, Appikonda RH colonyll, Vadlapudi, Gajuwakal Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
4. Kundrapu Somulamma, W/o Mutyalu, Hindu, age 62 years, housewife, residing at D.No.30-7-1, Appikonda RH colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
5.Kundrapu Simhachalam W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 86 years, residing at Door No.7-5, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project office, Visakhapatnam-31.
6. Geddam Kpentamma, W/o Simhachalam, age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.5-4, Hastinapuram, H/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Ramineni Venkateswararao, S/o Basavayya, Hindu, age 45 years, business, resilding at D.No.10-32-6, Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya and Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.7 and defendants 1,3,4,6 remind exparte and suit against defendant 2 and 5 dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties at metes and bounds into seven equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and such equal shares dto thedefendants 1 to 6, and deliver separate possession ofk such share so allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 on converting the joint possession into separate possession; for profits that can be determined by way of separate application; and for costs of the suit.
PW.1 called absent No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 31st day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFF:-
P.W.1/ dt.8.12.2017 - Vennela Pydamma W/o Somulu.(Chief examination only)
FOR DEFENDANT:- NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 16-08-2012
Date of Filing:16-08-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.199/2012
Between:
Vennela Pydamma,W/o Somulu, Hindu, age 65 years, household duties, resildilng at D.No.8-4, Mettapalem village, lH/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Paraawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Eerla Sreeramulu,S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 52 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.7-56, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steet project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
2.Eerla Suryanarayana, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 50 years, cultivation, residilng at D.No.7-55, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
3.Eerla Vonumulu, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 48 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.30-71-1, Appikonda RH colonyll, Vadlapudi, Gajuwakal Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
4. Kundrapu Somulamma, W/o Mutyalu, Hindu, age 62 years, housewife, residing at D.No.30-7-1, Appikonda RH colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
5.Kundrapu Simhachalam W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 86 years, residing at Door No.7-5, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project office, Visakhapatnam-31.
6. Geddam Kpentamma, W/o Simhachalam, age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.5-4, Hastinapuram, H/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Ramineni Venkateswararao, S/o Basavayya, Hindu, age 45 years, business, resilding at D.No.10-32-6, Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
Suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties at metes and bounds into seven equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and such equal shares dto thedefendants 1 to 6, and deliver separate possession ofk such share so allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 on converting the joint possession into separate possession; for profits that can be determined by way of separate application; and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction of this court
Valuel of the plaint schedule property consisting of Ac.5.00 cents and @
Rs.15,00,000/- per acre as per basic value register Rs. 16,05,000-00
Plaintiff’s 1/7th share Rs. 10,71,428-00 3/4th value share Rs. 8,03,571-00
C.F. of Rs.10,826-00 is payable, but a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid under
Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya and Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri
A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.7 and defendants 1,3,4,6 remind exparte and suit against defendant 2 and 5 dismissed for default and this Court doth order and ;
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and theseal of this court, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.189/2017
Between: Chekuri Ramaraju S/o Venkata Raju @ Venkatarao, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, resident of D.No.1-38, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Gogula Srinivas S/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, age 49 years, resident of D.No.1- 113, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram & Sri BSVRajagopal,Advocates for plaintiff. Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit . Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery oif
Rs.6,84,333/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note
dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of
plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
I.A59 /2018 is allowed. Accordingly the matter is advanced to today from 23.02.2018.
The plaintiff is present. Plaintiff filed memo not pressing the suit as matter was settled out of court. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly suit is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:19-12-2017
Date of Filing:19-12-2017
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.189/2017
Between:
Chekuri Ramaraju S/o Venkata Raju @ Venkatarao, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, resident of D.No.1-38, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Gogula Srinivas S/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, age 49 years, resident of D.No.1- 113, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery oif
Rs.6,84,333/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note
dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of
plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is
Rs.6,84,333/- and a court fee of Rs.9,326/- is paid under Section 20 r/w Art.I(a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram & Sri B.S.V.Rajagopal, Advocates for plaintiff. Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit . Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs;
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.255/2013
Between: Panduri Satyarao S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, age 69 years, retired MPDO, Sabbavaram, N/o Venkatapuram village Munagapaka Mandal, presently, residing at D.No.14-38-1/A, Plot No.303, Viswanadh Residency, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2.
Plaintiff. And:
1. Panduri Kanaka Apparao,s/o Late Nookaiah, Hindu, age 45 years, Resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Panduri Ramalakshmi W/o Kanaka Apparao, Hindu, age 40 years, resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Chinni China Appalanaidu @ Innabbai,S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, age 69 yearls, resident of Venkatapuram village, via; Paravada, Thanam post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.V.R.Joga rao and Mr.R.Atchutharamaiah, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate of defendants. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the item No.6 of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants their men, agents servants there from; for future profits till the delivaery of the possession of item No.6 of schedule property as to be determined in a separate enquiry under order 20 R.12 of CPC; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. PW1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suilt is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW1/ Dt.9-6-2017/Panduri Satya Rao, S/o Simhachalam (chief affidavit only)
FOR DEFENDANT: NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 26-12-2013 Date of Filing: 26-12-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.255/2013
Between: Panduri Satyarao S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, age 69 years, retired MPDO, Sabbavaram, N/o Venkatapuram village Munagapaka Mandal, presently, residing at D.No.14-38-1/A, Plot No.303, Viswanadh Residency, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2. Plaintiff. And:
1. Panduri Kanaka Apparao,s/o Late Nookaiah, Hindu, age 45 years, Resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Panduri Ramalakshmi W/o Kanaka Apparao, Hindu, age 40 years, resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Chinni China Appalanaidu @ Innabbai,S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, age 69 yearls, resident of Venkatapuram village, via; Paravada, Thanam post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the item No.6 of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants their men, agents servants there from; for future profits till the delivaery of the possession of item No.6 of schedule property as to be determined in a separate enquiry under order 20 R.12 of CPC; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suilt for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is
Rs.10,000/- for relief of permanent injunction and Rs.1,20,000/- being 3/4th market value for relief of declaration and possession and CF of Rs.4,412/- is paid under Sec.26 (c) & 24(a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
Total value of item-6 property Rs. 1,60,000-00 3/4th of the Market value is Rs. 1,20,000-00
Notional value of items 1 to 5 Rs. 10,000-00
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri B.V.R.Joga rao and Mr.R.Atchutharamaiah, Advocates for plaintiff and of
Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate of defendants. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the suilt be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.221/2013
Between:
Gulla Sreeram Murthy S/o Chellanna Dora, Hindu, age 33 years, cultivation, resident of Door No.3-16, Buddibanda village H/o Kovagunta village, Vommali Jagannadhapuram post, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Konathala Radhabhai, W/o Seetharam, Hindu, age years, House wife, resident of Door No.2-95, Sampathipuram village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Central Bank of India, Main branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Ch.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation on either side.Hence the suilt is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.05.2005 by directing thedefendant to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp paper and register the samek in respect of the plaint schedule property in favoudr of the plaintiff and to do all the acts necaessary to put the plaintiff in possession with such time as the court fixes, ilf the 1st defendant, fails to execute the regular sale deed, the court may execute the same at the costs of the plaintiffl and recover the same from thedefendant (b) for an alternative relief foir refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the 1st defendant and for costs of the suilt.
Costs not paid. PW1 called absent. No representation on either side.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIl
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of presentation:22-11-2013 Date of Filing :22-11-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.221/2013
Between: Gulla Sreeram Murthy S/o Chellanna Dora, Hindu, age 33 years, cultivation, resident of Door No.3-16, Buddibanda village H/o Kovagunta village, Vommali Jagannadhapuram post, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Konathala Radhabhai, W/o Seetharam, Hindu, age years, House wife, resident of Door No.2-95, Sampathipuram village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Central Bank of India, Main branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.05.2005 by directing thedefendant to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp paper and register the samek in respect of the plaint schedule property in favoudr of the plaintiff and to do all the acts necaessary to put the plaintiff in possession with such time as the court fixes, ilf the 1st defendant, fails to execute the regular sale deed, the court may execute the same at the costs of the plaintiffl and recover the same from thedefendant (b) for an alternative relief foir refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the 1st defendant and for costs of the suilt.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is
Rs.4,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.6,426/- is paid under Sec.39 of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri
Ch.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation on either side. Hence the suilt is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of Plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 20-10-2014 Date of Filing:20-04-2014
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.263/2014
Between: Penmetsa Vishnukumar Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju, age 53 years, residing at Plot No.A-19, D.No.50-104-1/9, Seeethammadhara N.E.Layout, Visakhapatnam-13. Plaintiff. And:
1.Karri Bangarunaidu S/o Ramunaidu, age 52 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Karri Ramprasad S/o Ramunaidu, age 44 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
Suit filed by the plaintilff against the defendants(a) to pass a decree to directilng the defendants to execute the register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaintk kschedule property interms of the agreement of sale executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff within time fixed by the court (b) in case if the defendants fail to execute and register a sale deed, the court may itself execute and register a sale deed for aand on behalf of the defendants in respect of theplailant schedule at the expenses of the plaintiff
(c) to put the plaiantiff’s in possessilon of the plailnt schedule after evicting the defendants therefrom (d) alternatively, if the court feels that for any reason, the relief of specific performance could not be awarded, directing the defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,24,160/- paid by the plaintiff under the agreement of sale dtogether with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the agreement of sale till date of full land final reliazation and for costs of the suilt.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is valued at
Rs.5,24,160-00 and a court fee of Rs.7726/- is being paid under Sec.39, r/w
Sch.I Art.I (b) & (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi and Sri V.Viswanadham,Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri
M.Srinivasarao and M.V.R.Bhupathirao, Advocates for 1st defendant and of Sri
S.P.Naidu and R.Appalanaidu, Advocates for 2nd defendant . Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit claim. Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 01st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.263/2014
Between: Penmetsa Vishnukumar Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju, age 53 years,residing at Plot No.A-19, D.No.50-104-1/9, Seeethammadhara N.E.Layout, Visakhapatnam-13. Plaintiff. And:
1.Karri Bangarunaidu S/o Ramunaidu, age 52 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Karri Ramprasad S/o Ramunaidu, age 44 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi and Sri V.Viswanadham,Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri M.Srinivasarao and M.V.R.Bhupathirao, Advocates for 1st defendant and of Sri S.P.Naidu and R.Appalanaidu, Advocates for 2nd defendant . Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit claim. Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintilff against the defendants(a) to pass a decree to directilng the defendants to execute the register a sale deed iln favour of the plailntiff in respect of the plaintk kschedule property ilnterms of the agreement of sale executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff withiln time fixed by the court (b) in case if the defendants fail to execute and register a sale deed, the court may itself execute and register a sale deed for aand on behalf of the defendants in respect of theplailant schedule at the expenses of the plaintiff (c) to put the plaiantiff’s in possessilon of the plailnt schedule after evicting the defendants therefrom (d) alternatively, if the court feels that for any reason, the relief of specific performance could not be awarded, directing the defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,24,160/- paid by the plaintiff under the agreement of sale dtogether with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the agreement of sale till date of full land final reliazattion and for costs of the suilt.
Plaintiff filed a memo not press the suit claim as matter was settled out of court. Hence memo is recorded the suilt is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.199/2012
Between: Vennela Pydamma,W/o Somulu, Hindu, age 65 years, household duties, resildilng at D.No.8-4, Mettapalem village, lH/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Paraawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Eerla Sreeramulu,S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 52 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.7-56,Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steet project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
2.Eerla Suryanarayana, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 50 years, cultivation, residilng at D.No.7-55, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
3.Eerla Vonumulu, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 48 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.30-71-1, Appikonda RH colonyll, Vadlapudi, Gajuwakal Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
4. Kundrapu Somulamma, W/o Mutyalu, Hindu, age 62 years, housewife, residing at D.No.30-7-1, Appikonda RH colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
5.Kundrapu Simhachalam W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 86 years, residing at Door No.7-5, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project office, Visakhapatnam-31.
6. Geddam Kpentamma, W/o Simhachalam, age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.5-4, Hastinapuram, H/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Ramineni Venkateswararao, S/o Basavayya, Hindu, age 45 years, business, resilding at D.No.10-32-6, Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya and Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.7 and defendants 1,3,4,6 remind exparte and suit against defendant 2 and 5 dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties at metes and bounds into seven equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and such equal shares dto thedefendants 1 to 6, and deliver separate possession ofk such share so allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 on converting the joint possession into separate possession; for profits that can be determined by way of separate application; and for costs of the suit.
PW.1 called absent No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 31st day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFF:-
P.W.1/ dt.8.12.2017 - Vennela Pydamma W/o Somulu.(Chief examination only)
FOR DEFENDANT:- NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 16-08-2012
Date of Filing:16-08-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.199/2012
Between: Vennela Pydamma,W/o Somulu, Hindu, age 65 years, household duties, resildilng at D.No.8-4, Mettapalem village, lH/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Paraawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Eerla Sreeramulu,S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 52 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.7-56, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steet project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
2.Eerla Suryanarayana, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 50 years, cultivation, residilng at D.No.7-55, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
3.Eerla Vonumulu, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 48 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.30-71-1, Appikonda RH colonyll, Vadlapudi, Gajuwakal Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
4. Kundrapu Somulamma, W/o Mutyalu, Hindu, age 62 years, housewife, residing at D.No.30-7-1, Appikonda RH colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
5.Kundrapu Simhachalam W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 86 years, residing at Door No.7-5, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project office, Visakhapatnam-31.
6. Geddam Kpentamma, W/o Simhachalam, age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.5-4, Hastinapuram, H/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Ramineni Venkateswararao, S/o Basavayya, Hindu, age 45 years, business, resilding at D.No.10-32-6, Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
Suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties at metes and bounds into seven equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and such equal shares dto thedefendants 1 to 6, and deliver separate possession ofk such share so allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 on converting the joint possession into separate possession; for profits that can be determined by way of separate application; and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction of this court
Valuel of the plaint schedule property consisting of Ac.5.00 cents and @
Rs.15,00,000/- per acre as per basic value register Rs. 16,05,000-00
Plaintiff’s 1/7th share Rs. 10,71,428-00 3/4th value share Rs. 8,03,571-00
C.F. of Rs.10,826-00 is payable, but a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid under
Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya and Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri
A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.7 and defendants 1,3,4,6 remind exparte and suit against defendant 2 and 5 dismissed for default and this Court doth order and ;
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and theseal of this court, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.189/2017
Between: Chekuri Ramaraju S/o Venkata Raju @ Venkatarao, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, resident of D.No.1-38, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Gogula Srinivas S/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, age 49 years, resident of D.No.1- 113, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram & Sri BSVRajagopal,Advocates for plaintiff. Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit . Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery oif
Rs.6,84,333/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note
dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of
plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
I.A59 /2018 is allowed. Accordingly the matter is advanced to today from 23.02.2018.
The plaintiff is present. Plaintiff filed memo not pressing the suit as matter was settled out of court. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly suit is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:19-12-2017
Date of Filing:19-12-2017
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.189/2017
Between: Chekuri Ramaraju S/o Venkata Raju @ Venkatarao, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, resident of D.No.1-38, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Gogula Srinivas S/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, age 49 years, resident of D.No.1- 113, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery oif
Rs.6,84,333/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note
dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of
plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is
Rs.6,84,333/- and a court fee of Rs.9,326/- is paid under Section 20 r/w Art.I(a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram & Sri B.S.V.Rajagopal, Advocates for plaintiff. Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit . Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs;
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.255/2013
Between: Panduri Satyarao S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, age 69 years, retired MPDO, Sabbavaram, N/o Venkatapuram village Munagapaka Mandal, presently, residing at D.No.14-38-1/A, Plot No.303, Viswanadh Residency, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2. Plaintiff. And:
1. Panduri Kanaka Apparao,s/o Late Nookaiah, Hindu, age 45 years, Resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Panduri Ramalakshmi W/o Kanaka Apparao, Hindu, age 40 years, resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Chinni China Appalanaidu @ Innabbai,S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, age 69 yearls, resident of Venkatapuram village, via; Paravada, Thanam post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.V.R.Joga rao and Mr.R.Atchutharamaiah, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate of defendants. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the item No.6 of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants their men, agents servants there from; for future profits till the delivaery of the possession of item No.6 of schedule property as to be determined in a separate enquiry under order 20 R.12 of CPC; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. PW1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suilt is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW1/ Dt.9-6-2017/Panduri Satya Rao, S/o Simhachalam (chief affidavit only)
FOR DEFENDANT: NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 26-12-2013 Date of Filing: 26-12-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.255/2013
Between: Panduri Satyarao S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, age 69 years, retired MPDO, Sabbavaram, N/o Venkatapuram village Munagapaka Mandal, presently, residing at D.No.14-38-1/A, Plot No.303, Viswanadh Residency, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2. Plaintiff. And:
1. Panduri Kanaka Apparao,s/o Late Nookaiah, Hindu, age 45 years, Resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Panduri Ramalakshmi W/o Kanaka Apparao, Hindu, age 40 years, resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Chinni China Appalanaidu @ Innabbai,S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, age 69 yearls, resident of Venkatapuram village, via; Paravada, Thanam post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the item No.6 of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants their men, agents servants there from; for future profits till the delivaery of the possession of item No.6 of schedule property as to be determined in a separate enquiry under order 20 R.12 of CPC; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suilt for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is
Rs.10,000/- for relief of permanent injunction and Rs.1,20,000/- being 3/4th market value for relief of declaration and possession and CF of Rs.4,412/- is paid under Sec.26 (c) & 24(a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
Total value of item-6 property Rs. 1,60,000-00 3/4th of the Market value is Rs. 1,20,000-00
Notional value of items 1 to 5 Rs. 10,000-00
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri B.V.R.Joga rao and Mr.R.Atchutharamaiah, Advocates for plaintiff and of
Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate of defendants. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the suilt be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.221/2013
Between: Gulla Sreeram Murthy S/o Chellanna Dora, Hindu, age 33 years, cultivation, resident of Door No.3-16, Buddibanda village H/o Kovagunta village, Vommali Jagannadhapuram post, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Konathala Radhabhai, W/o Seetharam, Hindu, age years, House wife, resident of Door No.2-95, Sampathipuram village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Central Bank of India, Main branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri
Ch.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation on either side.Hence the suilt is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.05.2005 by directing thedefendant to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp paper and register the samek in respect of the plaint schedule property in favoudr of the plaintiff and to do all the acts necaessary to put the plaintiff in possession with such time as the court fixes, ilf the 1st defendant, fails to execute the regular sale deed, the court may execute the same at the costs of the plaintiffl and recover the same from thedefendant (b) for an alternative relief foir refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the 1st defendant and for costs of the suilt.
Costs not paid. PW1 called absent. No representation on either side.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIl
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of presentation:22-11-2013 Date of Filing :22-11-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.221/2013
Between: Gulla Sreeram Murthy S/o Chellanna Dora, Hindu, age 33 years, cultivation, resident of Door No.3-16, Buddibanda village H/o Kovagunta village, Vommali Jagannadhapuram post, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Konathala Radhabhai, W/o Seetharam, Hindu, age years, House wife, resident of Door No.2-95, Sampathipuram village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Central Bank of India, Main branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.05.2005 by directing thedefendant to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp paper and register the samek in respect of the plaint schedule property in favoudr of the plaintiff and to do all the acts necaessary to put the plaintiff in possession with such time as the court fixes, ilf the 1st defendant, fails to execute the regular sale deed, the court may execute the same at the costs of the plaintiffl and recover the same from thedefendant (b) for an alternative relief foir refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the 1st defendant and for costs of the suilt.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is
Rs.4,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.6,426/- is paid under Sec.39 of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri
Ch.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation on either side. Hence the suilt is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of Plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Friday, this the 2th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.1062016
Between:
Sri Bharnikana Ramana Babu.
Plaintiff.
And:
Sri Karanam Naidu and 8 others.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Sri V.Venkata Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and
of Sri M.Jayaram and B.S.V. Rajagopal, Advocates for the defendants
and having stood over till this day this court settle the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for specific
performance of contract or
for alternative relief?
2) Whether the defendants are trying to alienate the plaint schedule
properties to
3rd parties?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 19-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 2nd day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Thursday, this the 8th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.131/2016
Between: Sri Molleti Bhuvaneswara Ramana Murthy
Plaintiff. And: Smt Genji Mahalaxmi, W/o late Sanyasinaidu and another.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri Lanka Jagannadham, Lanka Parvaateeswar and K.R.Ramaesh babu, Advocates for the Plaintiff and of SriP.Hara Srinivasa Rao,Advocate for the defendants and having stood over till this day this court settle the following: ISSUES
1) Whether the suit promissory note is a fabricated and created one and not supported by consideration?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for the suit amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 23-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Thursday, this the 8th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.141/2016
Between:
Sri G.V.Nageswararao S/o Venkata Rao
Plaintiff.
And:
Sri Palaparthi Apparao S/o Kondayya.
Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Sri Ch.V.Krishna, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of
Sri C.Sivaiah,Advocate for the defendant and having stood over till
this day this court settle the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the suit promissory note is a fabricated and rank forged
one and the
same is not supported by consideration as contended by
defendant?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for the suit amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 23-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 8th day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Wednesday, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.178/2016
Between:
Sri Katari Demudu S/o late Adeyya.
Plaintiff.
And:
Sri Chenna Parvathi @ Pujaramma W/o Appalakonda and 6 others.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Sri Lanka Jagannadham, Lanka Parvaateeswar
and K.R.Ramaesh babu, Advocates for the Plaintiff and of
SriP.V.Patnaik,Advocate for the defendants and having stood over till
this day this court settle the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the suit promissory note is a rank forged one as
contended by the defendants?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for the suit amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 23-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Friday, this the 2nd day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.156/2016
Between:
Smt. Gunisetti Lakshmi W/o Srinivas.
Plaintiff.
And:
Smt.Senapathi Lakshmi W/o late Satyam and 3 others
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Sri Vaddadi Venkata Rao, Advocate for the
Plaintiff and of Sri M.Jayaram,Advocate for the defendants 1 and 2 .
Defendants 3 remained exparte and having stood over till this day
this court settle the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is usurious as
contended
by the defendants?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for preliminary decree for the suit
amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 16-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 2nd day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Thursday, this the 8th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.104/2016
Between:
Smt. Uppada Uma Santhi Kumari W/o Ramachandrarao and another.
Plaintiffs.
And:
Sri Gundapu Ganapathirao S/o Jaggarao and another.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Sri Lanka Jagannadham, Lanka Parvaateeswar
and K.R.Ramaesh babu, Advocates for the Plaintiff and of SriS.Ram
Babu, Advocate for the defendants and having stood over till this
day this court settle the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the suit promissory note is a fabricated and rank forged
one and the
same is not supported by consideration as contended by
defendant?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for the suit amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 23-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 8th day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Wednesday, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.113/2016
Between:
Sri Madem Venkata Ramana S/o late Bangarayya.
Plaintiff.
And:
Sri Singampali Rama Rao,S/o late Appanna.
Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri
S.P.Naidu,Advocate for the defendant and having stood over till this
day this court settle the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the suit promissory note is a fabricated and created one
as contended
by defendants?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for the suit amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 23-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Thursday, this the 8th day of June,
2017.
O.S.No.116/2016
Between:
State Bank of India, Munagapaka Branch, Munagapaka.
Plaintiff.
And:
M/s Laxmiprasanth Digital Studios and Vedeos, Munagapaaka and 2
others.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi, Sri V.Viswaanadham,
Advocates for the Plaintiff and of Sri Y.Jagaish, Advocate for the
defendants and having stood over till this day this court settle the
following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the defendants are small farmers and they are entitled
to get relief
under debt relief Acts?
2) Whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is usurious?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for preliminary decree for the suit
amount?
4) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 23-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 8th day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Monday, this the 8th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.229/2015
Between:
Sri Malla Madhavarao S/o Narasimhamurthy.
Plaintiff.
And:
Smt.Doppalapudi Manjula W/o Busayya and another.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of
Sri Y.Sairam, Advocate for the defendants and having stood over till
this day this court settle the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, supported by
consideration and the same is binding on the defendants or not?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for the suit amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 21-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 5th day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Monday, this the 5th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.117/2016
Between:
Smt. Tainana Parvathamma W/o Sannibabu.
Plaintiffs.
And:
Smt. Gorle Ramanamma W/o late Satyanarayana.
Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Sri Lanka Jagannadham, Lanka Parvaateeswar
and K.R.Ramaesh babu, Advocates for the Plaintiff and of
SriP.A.Narasimham, Advocate for the defendants and having stood
over till this day this court settle the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the suit promissory note is true valid and the same is
binding
on the defendant or not?
2) Whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is penal and
usurious?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for the suit amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 21-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 5th day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Friday, this the 2th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.112/2016
Between:
State Bank of India, Sabbavaram, represented by its Branch
Manager, Sabbavaram.
Plaintiff.
And:
Sri Rama Poultry Feeds Thavvanipalem and 3 others.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Smt A.Bhanumathi and Sri V.Viswanadham,
Advocates for the Plaintiff and of Sri S.P.Naidu, Advocate for the
defendants and having stood over till this day this court settle the
following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is penal and
excessive as contended
by the defendant?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for the suit amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 16-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 2nd day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Thursday, this the 1st day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.249/2015
Between:
State Bank of India, Anakapalle Branch, represented by its Chief
Manager,Anakapalle.
Plaintiff.
And:
Kum.Vajragottu Lavanya and 3 others.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi, Sri V.Viswanadham,
Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri K.P.V.Ramanaiah, Advocate for
defendants and having stood over till this day this court settle the
following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the Education loan is entitle to interest waiver, as such
the suit amount
is excessive and penal in nature?
2) Whether the defendants are trying to alienate the plaint schedule
properties to
III rd parties?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 16-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 1st day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
+ O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
Date of presentation:06-09-2007 Date of Filing:28-09-2007 06-09-2007IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Tuesday this the 20th of June, 2017.
CMA.No.01/2007
Between: Sri Villuri Ramu, son of late Mahalakshmi Naidu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Dr.No.15-22-6/1, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Appellant. And:
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2) The Collector under Section-47-A of Indian stamp Act and District Registrar of Assurances, Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam.
3) The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalle.
Respondents
Petition filed under section 47-A (4 & 5) of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule-9 of A.P.Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975 by the Petitioner/Appellant against the respondent District Registrar of Assurance Registration and stamps Visakhapatnam to set aside the proceedings No.595/G2/07,dt.27-06-2007 by allowing this Appeal with costs.
A fixed Court fee of Rs.5/- is paid under Section47-A of Indian Stamp Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya,
Sri M.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for Appellant and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for Defendants. Counsel for appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the Civil Miscellaneous petition and having stood over till this day this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 20th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For APPELLANT FOR RESPONDENTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Tuesday this the 20th of June, 2017.
CMA.No.01/2007
Between: Sri Villuri Ramu, son of late Mahalakshmi Naidu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Dr.No.15-22-6/1, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Appellant. And:
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2) The Collector under Section-47-A of Indian stamp Act and District Registrar of Assurances, Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam.
3) The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalle.
Respondents
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya,
Sri M.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for Appellant and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for Defendants. Counsel for appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the Civil Miscellaneous petition and having stood over till this day this court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under section 47-A (4 & 5) of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule-9 of A.P.Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975 by the Petitioner/Appellant against the respondent District Registrar of Assurance Registration and stamps Visakhapatnam to set aside the proceedings No.595/G2/07,dt.27-06-2007 by allowing this Appeal with costs.
Counsel for Appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the CMA. Memo is recorded.
Hence this CMA is dismissed without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) Andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence though granted several adjournments . Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015
Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for
Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli
Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016
Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between:
Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence though granted several adjournments . Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016
Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for
Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP + O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
Date of presentation:06-09-2007 Date of Filing:28-09-2007 06-09-2007IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Tuesday this the 20th of June, 2017.
CMA.No.01/2007
Between: Sri Villuri Ramu, son of late Mahalakshmi Naidu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Dr.No.15-22-6/1, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Appellant. And:
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2) The Collector under Section-47-A of Indian stamp Act and District Registrar of Assurances, Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam.
3) The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalle.
Respondents
Petition filed under section 47-A (4 & 5) of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule-9 of A.P.Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975 by the Petitioner/Appellant against the respondent District Registrar of Assurance Registration and stamps Visakhapatnam to set aside the proceedings No.595/G2/07,dt.27-06-2007 by allowing this Appeal with costs.
A fixed Court fee of Rs.5/- is paid under Section47-A of Indian Stamp Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya,
Sri M.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for Appellant and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for Defendants. Counsel for appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the Civil Miscellaneous petition and having stood over till this day this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 20th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For APPELLANT FOR RESPONDENTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Tuesday this the 20th of June, 2017.
CMA.No.01/2007
Between: Sri Villuri Ramu, son of late Mahalakshmi Naidu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Dr.No.15-22-6/1, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Appellant. And:
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2) The Collector under Section-47-A of Indian stamp Act and District Registrar of Assurances, Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam.
3) The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalle.
Respondents
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya,
Sri M.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for Appellant and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for Defendants. Counsel for appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the Civil Miscellaneous petition and having stood over till this day this court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under section 47-A (4 & 5) of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule-9 of A.P.Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975 by the Petitioner/Appellant against the respondent District Registrar of Assurance Registration and stamps Visakhapatnam to set aside the proceedings No.595/G2/07,dt.27-06-2007 by allowing this Appeal with costs.
Counsel for Appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the CMA. Memo is recorded.
Hence this CMA is dismissed without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) Andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence though granted several adjournments . Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence though granted several adjournments . Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016
Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.229/2015
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
Date of presentation:06-09-2007 Date of Filing:28-09-2007 06-09-2007IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Tuesday this the 20th of June, 2017.
CMA.No.01/2007
Between: Sri Villuri Ramu, son of late Mahalakshmi Naidu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Dr.No.15-22-6/1, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Appellant. And:
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2) The Collector under Section-47-A of Indian stamp Act and District Registrar of Assurances, Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam.
3) The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalle.
Respondents
Petition filed under section 47-A (4 & 5) of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule-9 of A.P.Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975 by the Petitioner/Appellant against the respondent District Registrar of Assurance Registration and stamps Visakhapatnam to set aside the proceedings No.595/G2/07,dt.27-06-2007 by allowing this Appeal with costs.
A fixed Court fee of Rs.5/- is paid under Section47-A of Indian Stamp Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya,
Sri M.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for Appellant and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for Defendants. Counsel for appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the Civil Miscellaneous petition and having stood over till this day this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 20th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For APPELLANT FOR RESPONDENTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Tuesday this the 20th of June, 2017.
CMA.No.01/2007
Between: Sri Villuri Ramu, son of late Mahalakshmi Naidu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Dr.No.15-22-6/1, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Appellant. And:
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2) The Collector under Section-47-A of Indian stamp Act and District Registrar of Assurances, Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam.
3) The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalle.
Respondents
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya,
Sri M.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for Appellant and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for Defendants. Counsel for appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the Civil Miscellaneous petition and having stood over till this day this court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under section 47-A (4 & 5) of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule-9 of A.P.Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975 by the Petitioner/Appellant against the respondent District Registrar of Assurance Registration and stamps Visakhapatnam to set aside the proceedings No.595/G2/07,dt.27-06-2007 by allowing this Appeal with costs.
Counsel for Appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the CMA. Memo is recorded.
Hence this CMA is dismissed without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) Andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence though granted several adjournments . Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016
Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74,
Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between:
Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence though granted several adjournments . Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP Date of presentation:06-09-2007 Date of Filing:28-09-2007 06-09-2007IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Tuesday this the 20th of June, 2017.
CMA.No.01/2007
Between: Sri Villuri Ramu, son of late Mahalakshmi Naidu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Dr.No.15-22-6/1, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Appellant. And:
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2) The Collector under Section-47-A of Indian stamp Act and District Registrar ofAssurances, Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam.
3) The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalle.
Respondents
Petition filed under section 47-A (4 & 5) of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule-9 of A.P.Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975 by the Petitioner/Appellant against the respondent District Registrar of Assurance Registration and stamps Visakhapatnam to set aside the proceedings No.595/G2/07,dt.27-06-2007 by allowing this Appeal with costs.
A fixed Court fee of Rs.5/- is paid under Section47-A of Indian Stamp Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya,
Sri M.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for Appellant and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for Defendants. Counsel for appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the Civil Miscellaneous petition and having stood over till this day this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 20th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For APPELLANT FOR RESPONDENTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Tuesday this the 20th of June, 2017.
CMA.No.01/2007
Between: Sri Villuri Ramu, son of late Mahalakshmi Naidu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Dr.No.15-22-6/1, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Appellant.
And:
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2) The Collector under Section-47-A of Indian stamp Act and District Registrar ofAssurances, Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam.
3) The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalle.
Respondents
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya,
Sri M.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for Appellant and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for Defendants. Counsel for appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the Civil Miscellaneous petition and having stood over till this day this court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under section 47-A (4 & 5) of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule-9 of A.P.Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975 by the Petitioner/Appellant against the respondent District Registrar of Assurance Registration and stamps Visakhapatnam to set aside the proceedings No.595/G2/07,dt.27-06-2007 by allowing this Appeal with costs.
Counsel for Appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the CMA. Memo is recorded.
Hence this CMA is dismissed without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4.
Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: FOR
Defendants
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4.
Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) Andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence though granted several adjournments . Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPAL
LI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli
Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence though granted several adjournments . Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between:
Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Tuesday, this the 16th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No 165/2016
Between:
Sri Konatala Koteswara Rao, Late Ramu Naidu, Hindu, age 46 years, cultivation, resident at D.No.7-85, Munagapaka village, post and Mandal, near Sri Rama temple, Mandabayalu, Visakhapatnam . Plaintiff. And:
Sri Kandregula Nookaraju, S/o Sanyasi Naid, Hindu, age 47 years, cultivation resident at D.No.3-31, Vandrapalli village, post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.S.Chalam, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Lanka Jagannadham,Advocate for defendant and Counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that the subject matter was settled out of court and having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for a preliminary decree directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.10,03,333/- together with interest at the rate of Rs.24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization within the time stipulated by the court (b) if the defendant failed to pay the suit amount within the stipulated time, to pass a final decree ordering sale of the mortgaged property land for approaching such sale proceeds to the decretal amount (c) in the event, if the sale proceeds, are not balancing the decretal amount, permission may be granted to the plaintiff to sue the defendant personally and for costs of the suit.
Plaintiff and defendant present. Plaintiff filed memo stating that the subject matter of this suit was settled out of court and defendant paid entire mortgage debt and plaintiff prays the court may be pleased to dismiss the suit without costs. Memo is recorded. Hence this suit is dismissed without costs as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 16th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation : 24-10-2016 Date of filing:24-10-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Tuesday, this the 16th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No 165/2016
Between:
Sri Konatala Koteswara Rao, Late Ramu Naidu, Hindu, age 46 years, cultivation, resident at D.No.7-85, Munagapaka village, post and Mandal, near Sri Rama temple, Mandabayalu, Visakhapatnam . Plaintiff. And:
Sri Kandregula Nookaraju, S/o Sanyasi Naidul, Hindu, age 47 years, cultivation,resident at D.No.3-31, Vandrapalli village, post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant. Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for a preliminary decree directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.10,03,333/- together with interest at the rate of Rs.24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization within the time stipulated by the court (b) if the defendant failed to pay the suit amount within the stipulated time, to pass a final decree ordering sale of the mortgaged property land for approaching such sale proceeds to the decretal amount (c) in the event, if the sale proceeds, are not balancing the decretal amount, permission may be granted to the plaintiff to sue the defendant personally and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is
Rs.10,03,333-00 a court fee of Rs.12,626/- is paid under Sec.31(1) and Sec.20 of Sch.I Art.I (b) and(c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri S.S.Chalam, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Lanka Jagannadham, Advocate for defendant and Counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that the subject matter was settled out of court and having stood over till this day for consideration this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as settled out of court;
2) that there be no costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 16th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Tuesday, this the 16th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No 188/2014
Between:
State Bank of India,Anakapalli branch represented by its Chief Manager Sri A. Sai Prasad S/o Balaramaiah, age 50 years,Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff.
And:
Sri Patoju Vseerabhadra Rao S/o late Vioshnu Murthy, age 56 years, residing at H.No.1-23, Tuypuram village Butchayyapeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.A.Bhanumathi, Sri V.Viswanadham, Advocates for the Plaintiff Bank and of Sri M.Jaya Ram,Advocate for defendant. Costs not paid. Steps against deceased defendant not taken No representation on behalf of plaintiff and having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff bank (herein after to be referred as plaintiff) against the defendant for recover of an amount of Rs.3,26,147/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty six thousand one hundred and forty seven only) along with subsequent interest thereon at 13.40% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of the ksuiltk till date of realization and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Steps against deceased defendant not taken. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit defendant ils dismissed without costs as abated.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 16th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
For Plaintiff:
PW1:16-12-2015: Sri P.Satya SaiSubrahmanyaraju
List of documents marked for Plaintiff:-
Ex.A1 is the Bio-data form.
Ex.A2 is the letter of arrangement issued by the plaintiff and acknowledged the defendant.
Ex.A3 is the agreement of loan cum hypothecation executed by defendant.
Ex.A4 is the letter by the defendant addressed by the plaintiff.
Ex.A5 is the notice to the defendant by Lok Adalat, Anakapalli in
PLC.N;o.1171/13.
Ex.A6 is the certified extract of statement of loan.
For Defendant:- NIL
PSCJ/AKP Date of Presentation : 04-07-2014 Date of filing:30-07-2014
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Tuesday, this the 16th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No 188/2014
Between:
State Bank of India,Anakapalli branch represented by its Chief Manager Sri A. Sai Prasad S/o Balaramaiah, age 50 years,Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
Sri Patoju Vseerabhadra Rao S/o late Vioshnu Murthy, age 56 years, residing at H.No.1-23, Tuypuram village Butchayyapeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
Suit filed by the plaintiff bank (herein after to be referred as plaintiff) against the defendant for recover of an amount of Rs.3,26,147/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty six thousand one hundred and forty seven only) along with subsequent interest thereon at 13.40% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of the suilt till date of realization and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is valued at
Rs.3,26,147/- and a court fee of Rs.5,726/- is paid thereon under Sec.20 read with Art.I(b) and (c) of schedule I of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Smt.A.Bhanumathi, Sri V.Viswanadham, Advocates for the Plaintiff Bank and of Sri M.Jaya Ram,Advocate for defendant. Costs not paid. Steps against deceased defendant not taken No representation on behalf of plaintiff and having stood over till this day for consideration this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as no representation on behalf of plaintiff;
2) that the suit against defendant is dismissed without costs as abated;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 16th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Tuesday, this the 13th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.43/2016
Between:
Sri Kanchumarthy Ravi Kanth, son of Mohana Rao, Hindu, age 47 years, working as Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Sonthyam, Visakhapatnam, residing at Flat S-1, Premier paradise No.3, Official colony, 3rd lane, Maharanipeta,Visakhapatnam . Plaintiff. And:
Smt.Kanchumarthy Bharathi Devi, daughter of Yarasani Suri Babu, Hindu, age 46 years, working as Teacher (In charge/Pre Premier), D.A.V Public School, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District, residing at Flat No.T-1, Sri Sai Ganesh Villa, Near Commercial Tax office, New colony, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri I.M.Ahmed, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri K.Sunil Reddy,Advocate for defendant and Counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that the subject matter was settled out of court and having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) to direct the defendant to vacate the schedule premises and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff in good condition as is given to the defendant and direct the defendant to pay Rs.4,32,000/- towards arrears of rent from February,2013 to
February,2016 with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization and to direct the defendant to pay monthly rents at 12,000/- from March,2016 till delivery of the same to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.
Counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that the subject matter of this suit was settled out of court and hence the plaintiff not pressing the suit and prays the court may be pleased to dismiss the suit. Memo is recorded. Hence this suit dismissed without costs as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation : 28-3-2016 Date of filing:29-03-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Anakapalli
Tuesday, this the 13th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.43/2016
Between:
Sri Kanchumarthy Ravi Kanth, son of Mohana Rao, Hindu, age 47 years, working as Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Sonthyam, Visakhapatnam, residing at Flat S-1, Premier paradise No.3, Official colony, 3rd lane, Maharanipeta,Visakhapatnam . Plaintiff. And:
Smt.Kanchumarthy Bharathi Devi, daughter of Yarasani Suri Babu, Hindu, age 46 years, working as Teacher (In charge/Pre Premier), D.A.V Public School, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District, residing at Flat No.T-1, Sri Sai Ganesh Villa, Near Commercial Tax office, New colony, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) to direct the defendant to vacate the schedule premises and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff in good condition as is given to the defendant and direct the defendant to pay Rs.4,32,000/- towards arrears of rent from February,2013 to February,2016 with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization and to direct the defendant to pay monthly rents at 12,000/- from March,2016 till delivery of the same to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is as follows: For eviction the suit is valued on one year rent i.e. Rs.12,000/-x12= Rs.1,44,000/- and a court fee of Rs.3,926/- is paid .For recovery of arrears of rents the suit is valued at Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.12,000/-X36) and a court fee of Rs.6,826/- is paid U/Sec.40 and 20 Art.I(b&c) of APCF and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri I.M.Ahmed, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri K.Sunil Reddy, Advocate for defendant and Counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that the subject matter was settled out of court and having stood over till this day for consideration this court doth order and;
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as settled out of court;
2) that there be no costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 13th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli
Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between:
Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendan ts.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri
M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt. 11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation : 31-08-2016 Date of Filing : 15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between:
Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
……..Petitioner/Plaintiff
And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
…….Respondents/defendan ts
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt. 11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Rs.1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri
M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side. PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli
Wednesday, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between:
Sri Karri Bhaskara Rao,S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10-63, Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o Late Suri babu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36, Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Trinadha Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant. Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation : 21-12-2015 Date of filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Anakapalli
Wednesday, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between:
Sri Karri Bhaskara Rao,S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10-63, Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o Late Suri babu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36, Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant.
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific paerformance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is
Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I Art.I(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F.& S.V.ACT.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri B.Trinadha Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and having stood over till this day for consideration this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Anakapalli
Tuesday, this the 13th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.69/2013
Between:
Sri Chapala Gopi,S/o Bandiyya,Hindu, age 38 years, catering business, residing at D.No.20-3-10, Ambedkar Nagar, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
1) Mogalapalli Parvathi, D/o late Venkataramana, Hindu, age 56 years, household duties, residing at D.No.11-1-8, Opp.Kanyaka parameswari temple shopping complex, main road, Anakapalli village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Mogalapalli Appalaraju Kumari, D/o late Venkataramana, Hindu, age 53 years, house hold duties-rest-do-
3) Mogalapalli Venkata Bhanu Murthy, S/o late Venkataramana, Hindu, age 50 Years, -rest-do-. Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of
Sri B.Trinadha Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad,
Advocate for defendants. Plaintiff called absent No representation and having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed for recover a sum of Rs.6,30,666/- being the principal of
Rs.5,00,000/- due on a promissory note dated 6-3-2012 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.
PW1 absent costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. PW1 did not turn up to this court since long time though granted adjournments given on costs. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 13h day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation : 08-04-2013 Date of Filing:08-04-2013
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Anakapalli
Tuesday, this the 13th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.69/2013
Between:
Sri Chapala Gopi,S/o Bandiyya,Hindu, age 38 years, catering business, residilng at D.No.20-3-10, Ambedkar Nagar, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
1) Mogalapalli Parvathi, D/o late Venkataramana, Hindu, age 56 years, household duties, residing at D.No.11-1-8, Opp.Kanyaka parameswari temple shopping complex, main road, Anakapalli village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Mogalapalli Appalaraju Kumari, D/o late Venkataramana, Hindu, age 53 years, house hold duties-rest-do-
3) Mogalapalli Venkata Bhanu Murthy, S/o late Venkataramana, Hindu, Age 50 years, -rest-do-. Defendants
Suit filed for recover a sum of Rs.6,30,666/- being the principal of Rs.5,00,000/- due on a promissory note dated 6-3-2012 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a.and with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,30,666/- and a court fee of Rs.8,826/- is paid under Sec.20 Sch.I Art.I(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F.& S.V.ACT.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri B.Trinadha Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendants. Plaintiff called absent No representation and having stood over till this day for consideration this court doth order
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 13th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
In the Court of :Prl Senior Civil Judge
Case No. :EP/0000109/2013 Garikipati Bhavani Vs Dadi Sambamurthy
Date : 28-06-2017
Business: Costs not paid. Steps not filed both parties called absent. No representation. Hence EP is dismissed for default. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 28-06-2017 Prl Senior Civil Judge
In the Court of :Prl Senior Civil Judge
Case No. :S.O.P/0000326/2012 Koyikala Varalakshmi Vs Nil
Date : 20-03-2018
Business: PW1 called absent No further evidence is filed No representation hence the matter is dismissed for default. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 20-03-2018 Prl Senior Civil Judge
In the Court of :Prl Senior Civil Judge
Case No. :H.M.O.P/0000018/2016 Gudepu Manikyala Rao Vs --
Date : 18-09-2017
Business: PW1 and PW2 called present. A memo filed by the counsel
for petitioner stating PW1 and PW2 lived together and the
petitioner is not pressing this petition. Heard . Memo is recorded. This petition is dismissed as not pressed. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED
In the Court of :Prl Senior Civil Judge
Case No. :OS/0000237/2013 Kollimalla Apparao Vs Bagidi Appa Rao
Date : 23-01-2018
Business: Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation for the plaintiff side hence the suit is dismissed for default.
IA218/2016 As the main suit is dismissed for default this IA
is also dismissed for default. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 23-01-2018 Prl Senior Civil Judge
In the Court of :Prl Senior Civil Judge
Case No. :IP/0000003/2016 Seeram Rama Krishna Vs Karri Bangarunaidu
Date : 27-04-2017
Business: In the result, the petition is allowed by adjudicating the petitioner as insolvent. Six months time is granted for discharge. Nature of Disposal: ALLOWED Disposal Date: 27-04-2017 Prl Senior Civil Judge
In the Court of :Prl Senior Civil Judge
Case No. :OS/0000168/2015 Gorli Appa Rao Vs Bokam Sreenu
Date : 09-09-2017
Business: Both parties are called present.and filed terms of compromise. Terms of compromise read over and explained to them in Telugu and admitted by them to be correct and accordingly terms are recorded. Award is passed (Vide separate Award) by incorporating the terms of compromise. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 09-09-2017 Prl Senior Civil Judge
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.03/2014
Between: Payala Jyothi, W/o Srilnivasu, C/o. Palli Rajeswara Rao, Hindu, age 24 years, House holdl dutiles, residing at 4-15. Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal,l Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And: Payala Srilnivasu, S/o Rajeswara Rao, age 35 yealrs, Residing at Door No.3-4- 26/1, Telephone Exchange street, Narasingaraopeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Respondent This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriK.Chandra Sekhar,K.Gangadhararao, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri V.Rajasekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called present.Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition in view of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Memo is recoraded and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act. This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-Husband to directing the respondent to come to the house of the petitioner and live with him for discharging her conjugal obligations and for costs of the petition. Both parties called present. Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition inveiw of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 22nd day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 24 th day of October, 2017
HMOP.NO.49/2013
Between: Alla Swarulpa @ Varaha Lalitha Sawarupa,W/o Rama Chandra Prasad, Hindu, age 19 years, Household duties, residing at Door No.19-4-17, Buddha Prakasa Rao Naidu gari street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle. Petitioner And: Alla Rama Chandra Prasad, S/o China Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, physically handicapped, residing at Door No.50-83-10, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 16. Respondent This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriBuddha Thrinadha Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.11 of Hindu marriage Act. This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 13.02.2013 due to non consummation of marriage as null and void and for costs of the petition. Both parties calasled absent. No representation on either side .Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 24
th day of October, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.03/2014
Between: Payala Jyothi, W/o Srilnivasu, C/o. Palli Rajeswara Rao, Hindu, age 24 years, House holdl dutiles, residing at 4-15. Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal,l Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And: Payala Srilnivasu, S/o Rajeswara Rao, age 35 yealrs, Residing at Door No.3-4- 26/1, Telephone Exchange street, Narasingaraopeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriK.Chandra Sekhar,K.Gangadhararao, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri V.Rajasekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called present.Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition in view of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Memo is recoraded and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act. This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-Husband to directing the respondent to come to the house of the petitioner and live with him for discharging her conjugal obligations and for costs of the petition. Both parties called present. Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition inveiw of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 22nd day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
In the Court of :Prl Senior Civil Judge
Case No. :EP/0000083/2016 Pentakota Meena Devi Vs Kolli Rambabu
Date : 30-08-2017
Business: Both parties called absent. No representation. Hence EP is dismissed for default. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 30-08-2017 Prl Senior Civil Judge
In the Court of :Prl Senior Civil Judge
Case No. :OS/0000314/2012 Koilada Ganesh Vs Smt. Yellapu Kanaka Maha Lakshmi
Date : 07-09-2017
Business: Costs not paid. No evidence is filed both parties called absent. No representation .Hence the suit is dismissed for default. I.A.1028/2012 In view of main suit is dismissed for default This I.A also dismissed for default. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 07-09-2017 Prl Senior Civil Judge
In the Court of :Prl Senior Civil Judge
Case No. :EP/0000104/2014 srimath Tirumala peddinti Managatayaru Vs Indraganti Surynarayana
Date : 20-06-2017
Business: Batta for JDrs 2 and 3 not filed. DHR called absent. No representation. Hence the EP is dismissed for default without costs. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 20-06-2017 Prl Senior Civil Judge
In the Court of :Prl Senior Civil Judge
Case No. :H.M.O.P/0000005/2016 Palisetti Venkata Satya Uma Vs --
Date : 09-08-2017
Business: Petitioner and respondent called absent . Hence this petition is dismissed for default. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 09-08-2017 Prl Senior Civil Judge
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.199/2012
Between: Vennela Pydamma,W/o Somulu, Hindu, age 65 years, household duties, resildilng at D.No.8-4, Mettapalem village, lH/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Paraawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Eerla Sreeramulu,S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 52 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.7-56,Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steet project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
2.Eerla Suryanarayana, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 50 years, cultivation, residilng at D.No.7-55, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
3.Eerla Vonumulu, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 48 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.30-71-1, Appikonda RH colonyll, Vadlapudi, Gajuwakal Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
4. Kundrapu Somulamma, W/o Mutyalu, Hindu, age 62 years, housewife, residing at D.No.30-7-1, Appikonda RH colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
5.Kundrapu Simhachalam W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 86 years, residing at Door No.7-5, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project office, Visakhapatnam-31.
6. Geddam Kpentamma, W/o Simhachalam, age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.5-4, Hastinapuram, H/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Ramineni Venkateswararao, S/o Basavayya, Hindu, age 45 years, business, resilding at D.No.10-32-6, Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya and Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri
A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.7 and defendants 1,3,4,6 remind exparte and suit against defendant 2 and 5 dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties at metes and bounds into seven equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and such equal shares dto thedefendants 1 to 6, and deliver separate possession ofk such share so allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 on converting the joint possession into separate possession; for profits that can be determined by way of separate application; and for costs of the suit.
PW.1 called absent No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 31st day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFF:-
P.W.1/ dt.8.12.2017 - Vennela Pydamma W/o Somulu.(Chief examination only)
FOR DEFENDANT:- NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 16-08-2012
Date of Filing:16-08-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.199/2012
Between: Vennela Pydamma,W/o Somulu, Hindu, age 65 years, household duties, resildilng at D.No.8-4, Mettapalem village, lH/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Paraawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Eerla Sreeramulu,S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 52 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.7-56, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steet project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
2.Eerla Suryanarayana, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 50 years, cultivation, residilng at D.No.7-55, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
3.Eerla Vonumulu, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 48 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.30-71-1, Appikonda RH colonyll, Vadlapudi, Gajuwakal Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
4. Kundrapu Somulamma, W/o Mutyalu, Hindu, age 62 years, housewife, residing at D.No.30-7-1, Appikonda RH colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
5.Kundrapu Simhachalam W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 86 years, residing at Door No.7-5, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project office, Visakhapatnam-31.
6. Geddam Kpentamma, W/o Simhachalam, age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.5-4, Hastinapuram, H/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Ramineni Venkateswararao, S/o Basavayya, Hindu, age 45 years, business, resilding at D.No.10-32-6, Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
Suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties at metes and bounds into seven equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and such equal shares dto thedefendants 1 to 6, and deliver separate possession ofk such share so allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 on converting the joint possession into separate possession; for profits that can be determined by way of separate application; and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction of this court
Valuel of the plaint schedule property consisting of Ac.5.00 cents and @
Rs.15,00,000/- per acre as per basic value register Rs. 16,05,000-00
Plaintiff’s 1/7th share Rs. 10,71,428-00 3/4th value share Rs. 8,03,571-00
C.F. of Rs.10,826-00 is payable, but a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid under
Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya and Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri
A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.7 and defendants 1,3,4,6 remind exparte and suit against defendant 2 and 5 dismissed for default and this Court doth order and ;
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and theseal of this court, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.189/2017
Between: Chekuri Ramaraju S/o Venkata Raju @ Venkatarao, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, resident of D.No.1-38, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Gogula Srinivas S/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, age 49 years, resident of D.No.1- 113, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram & Sri BSVRajagopal,Advocates for plaintiff. Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit . Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery oif
Rs.6,84,333/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note
dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of
plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
I.A59 /2018 is allowed. Accordingly the matter is advanced to today from 23.02.2018.
The plaintiff is present. Plaintiff filed memo not pressing the suit as matter was settled out of court. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly suit is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:19-12-2017
Date of Filing:19-12-2017
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.189/2017
Between: Chekuri Ramaraju S/o Venkata Raju @ Venkatarao, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, resident of D.No.1-38, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Gogula Srinivas S/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, age 49 years, resident of D.No.1- 113, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery oif
Rs.6,84,333/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note
dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of
plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is
Rs.6,84,333/- and a court fee of Rs.9,326/- is paid under Section 20 r/w Art.I(a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram & Sri B.S.V.Rajagopal, Advocates for plaintiff. Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit . Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs;
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.255/2013
Between: Panduri Satyarao S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, age 69 years, retired MPDO, Sabbavaram, N/o Venkatapuram village Munagapaka Mandal, presently, residing at D.No.14-38-1/A, Plot No.303, Viswanadh Residency, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2. Plaintiff. And:
1. Panduri Kanaka Apparao,s/o Late Nookaiah, Hindu, age 45 years, Resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Panduri Ramalakshmi W/o Kanaka Apparao, Hindu, age 40 years, resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Chinni China Appalanaidu @ Innabbai,S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, age 69 yearls, resident of Venkatapuram village, via; Paravada, Thanam post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.V.R.Joga rao and Mr.R.Atchutharamaiah, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate of defendants. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the item No.6 of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants their men, agents servants there from; for future profits till the delivaery of the possession of item No.6 of schedule property as to be determined in a separate enquiry under order 20 R.12 of CPC; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. PW1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suilt is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW1/ Dt.9-6-2017/Panduri Satya Rao, S/o Simhachalam (chief affidavit only)
FOR DEFENDANT: NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 26-12-2013 Date of Filing: 26-12-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.255/2013
Between: Panduri Satyarao S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, age 69 years, retired MPDO, Sabbavaram, N/o Venkatapuram village Munagapaka Mandal, presently, residing at D.No.14-38-1/A, Plot No.303, Viswanadh Residency, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2. Plaintiff. And:
1. Panduri Kanaka Apparao,s/o Late Nookaiah, Hindu, age 45 years, Resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Panduri Ramalakshmi W/o Kanaka Apparao, Hindu, age 40 years, resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Chinni China Appalanaidu @ Innabbai,S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, age 69 yearls, resident of Venkatapuram village, via; Paravada, Thanam post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the item No.6 of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants their men, agents servants there from; for future profits till the delivaery of the possession of item No.6 of schedule property as to be determined in a separate enquiry under order 20 R.12 of CPC; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suilt for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is
Rs.10,000/- for relief of permanent injunction and Rs.1,20,000/- being 3/4th market value for relief of declaration and possession and CF of Rs.4,412/- is paid under Sec.26 (c) & 24(a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
Total value of item-6 property Rs. 1,60,000-00 3/4th of the Market value is Rs. 1,20,000-00
Notional value of items 1 to 5 Rs. 10,000-00
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri B.V.R.Joga rao and Mr.R.Atchutharamaiah, Advocates for plaintiff and of
Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate of defendants. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the suilt be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.221/2013
Between: Gulla Sreeram Murthy S/o Chellanna Dora, Hindu, age 33 years, cultivation, resident of Door No.3-16, Buddibanda village H/o Kovagunta village, Vommali Jagannadhapuram post, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Konathala Radhabhai, W/o Seetharam, Hindu, age years, House wife, resident of Door No.2-95, Sampathipuram village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Central Bank of India, Main branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Ch.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation on either side.Hence the suilt is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.05.2005 by directing thedefendant to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp paper and register the samek in respect of the plaint schedule property in favoudr of the plaintiff and to do all the acts necaessary to put the plaintiff in possession with such time as the court fixes, ilf the 1st defendant, fails to execute the regular sale deed, the court may execute the same at the costs of the plaintiffl and recover the same from thedefendant (b) for an alternative relief foir refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the 1st defendant and for costs of the suilt.
Costs not paid. PW1 called absent. No representation on either side.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIl
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of presentation:22-11-2013 Date of Filing :22-11-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.221/2013
Between: Gulla Sreeram Murthy S/o Chellanna Dora, Hindu, age 33 years, cultivation, resident of Door No.3-16, Buddibanda village H/o Kovagunta village, Vommali Jagannadhapuram post, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Konathala Radhabhai, W/o Seetharam, Hindu, age years, House wife, resident of Door No.2-95, Sampathipuram village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Central Bank of India, Main branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.05.2005 by directing thedefendant to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp paper and register the samek in respect of the plaint schedule property in favoudr of the plaintiff and to do all the acts necaessary to put the plaintiff in possession with such time as the court fixes, ilf the 1st defendant, fails to execute the regular sale deed, the court may execute the same at the costs of the plaintiffl and recover the same from thedefendant (b) for an alternative relief foir refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the 1st defendant and for costs of the suilt.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is
Rs.4,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.6,426/- is paid under Sec.39 of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri
Ch.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation on either side. Hence the suilt is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of Plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Prl.Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Anakapalle, dt.07-04-2018 From Sril S.Srinivasarao, To Prl.Senior Civil Judge, The Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Anakapalle VISAKHAPATNAM.
Honoured Madam
Sub:- Pauper suits-Statement showing the court fee awarded to the Government in pauper suits for the I quarter, 2018 ending by 31.03.2018. ***
I have the Honour to submit herewith the quarterly statement of pauper suits for the 1st quarter ending i.e. on 31.03.2018 relating to the Prl.Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Anakapalle for the period from 01-01-2018 to 31-03-2018.
Yours faithfully
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
Encl: Statement ANAKAPALLE
STATEMENT SHOWING THE REALIZATION OF COURT FEE IN PAUPER SUITS
RELATING TO PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT, ANAKAPALLE FOR THE
1ST QUARTER ENDING BY 31-03-2018.
S.No.Suit NumberDate ofAmount of C.F.Payable byWhen sent District decreeAwarded towhomCollector, GovernmentVisakhapatnam Dis.N.& Date. ---NIL---
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
Date of Presentatio:23-01-2014 Date of Filing: 24-01-2014
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.03/2014
Between:
Payala Jyothi, W/o Srilnivasu, C/o. Palli Rajeswara Rao, Hindu, age 24 years, House holdl dutiles, residing at 4-15. Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal,l Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And:
Payala Srilnivasu, S/o Rajeswara Rao, age 35 yealrs, Residing at Door No.3-4- 26/1, Telephone Exchange street, Narasingaraopeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Respondent
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-
Husband to directing the respondent to come to the house of the petitioner and live with him for discharging her conjugal obligations and for costs of the petition.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 is paid under Sch.II Art.I(vii) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar,K.Gangadhararao, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri V.Rajasekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called present.Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition in view of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Memo is recoraded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs
Given under my hand and theseal of this court, this the 22nd day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 30 th day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.3/2012
Between:
Pasupuletil Jyothi, W/o Chandrarao, Hindu, age 23 years, housewife, residing at D.No.9-47, C/o Kudirella Sanyasirao, Munagapaka village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And:
Pasupuleti Chandrarao,S/o Nooka Raju , Hindu, age 26 years, employee, Command Musician office, Head quarters Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base(P.O) D.Nop.15-7-12/2, Visakhapatnam-14.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriV.V.Jogayya and M.Srilnivasarao, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri A.S.V.Prasad, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called petitioner absent. Respondent is present. No representation for petitioner side .The counsel for the Respondent filed ecourts copy of orders in OP33/2012.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-husband lfor restitution of conjugal life of the petitio;ner with the rekskpondent, directing the respondent to laead happy marital lifle lwilth the petiltioner and lfor costs of the petition.
Objectio;nsl not filed. Both parties called. Petitioner absent. Respondent is present. No rsepresentation for petitioner side. The counsel for the
Respondent filed ecourts copy of orders in O.P.33/2012 on the file of Additional
Family Court, visakhapatnam allowing the application and granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under these circumstlances dthis petition is dilsmissed in view of the orders passed by Honourable in O.P.33/2012 abetween the same parties grant ldecree of divorce.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 30th day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Datae of Presentation:24-02-2012 Date of Filing:24-02-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 30 th day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.3/2012
Between: Pasupuletil Jyothi, W/o Chandrarao, Hindu, age 23 years, housewife, residing at D.No.9-47, C/o Kudirella Sanyasirao, Munagapaka village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And:
Pasupuleti Chandrarao,S/o Nooka Raju , Hindu, age 26 years, employee, Command Musician office, Head quarters Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base(P.O) D.Nop.15-7-12/2, Visakhapatnam-14.
Respondent
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-husband lfor restitution of conjugal life of the petitio;ner with the rekskpondent, directing the respondent to laead happy marital lifle lwilth the petiltioner and lfor costs of the petition.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 is paid under Art.I (vii) ,Sch.II of Sec.10 of
A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of SriV.V.Jogayya and M.Srilnivasarao, Advocates for petitioner and of
Sri A.S.V.Prasad, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called petitioner absent. Respondent is present. No representation for petitioner side .The counsel for the Respondent filed ecourts copy of orders in OP33/2012 on the file of Addl.Family Court, Visakhapatnam allowing the applickation and lgrantaing decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under these circumstances this petition is dismissed in view of the orders passed by the
Honourable Addl.Family Court, Visakhapatnam in OP33/2012 abetween the
same parties grant decree of divorce hence this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed
2) that there be no costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 30th day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER; FOR RESPONDENT:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 24 th day of October, 2017
HMOP.NO.49/2013
Between: Alla Swarulpa @ Varaha Lalitha Sawarupa,W/o Rama Chandra Prasad, Hindu, age 19 years, Household duties, residing at Door No.19-4-17, Buddha Prakasa Rao Naidu gari street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
Petitioner And:
Alla Rama Chandra Prasad, S/o China Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, physically handicapped, residing at Door No.50-83-10, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 16.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriBuddha Thrinadha Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.11 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 13.02.2013 due to non consummation of marriage as null and void and for costs of the petition.
Both parties calasled absent. No representation on either side .Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 24th day of October, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.03/2014
Between:
Payala Jyothi, W/o Srilnivasu, C/o. Palli Rajeswara Rao, Hindu, age 24 years, House holdl dutiles, residing at 4-15. Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal,l Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And:
Payala Srilnivasu, S/o Rajeswara Rao, age 35 yealrs, Residing at Door No.3-4- 26/1, Telephone Exchange street, Narasingaraopeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriK.Chandra Sekhar,K.Gangadhararao, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri V.Rajasekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called present.Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition in view of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Memo is recoraded and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-Husband to directing the respondent to come to the house of the petitioner and live with him for discharging her conjugal obligations and for costs of the petition.
Both parties called present. Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition inveiw of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 22nd day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 24 th day of October, 2017
HMOP.NO.49/2013
Between: Alla Swarulpa @ Varaha Lalitha Sawarupa,W/o Rama Chandra Prasad, Hindu, age 19 years, Household duties, residing at Door No.19-4-17, Buddha Prakasa Rao Naidu gari street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
Petitioner And:
Alla Rama Chandra Prasad, S/o China Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, physically handicapped, residing at Door No.50-83-10, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 16.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriBuddha Thrinadha Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.11 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 13.02.2013 due to non consummation of marriage as null and void and for costs of the petition.
Both parties calasled absent. No representation on either side .Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 24th day of October, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 22nd day of November, 2017
HMOP.NO.03/2014
Between: Payala Jyothi, W/o Srilnivasu, C/o. Palli Rajeswara Rao, Hindu, age 24 years, House holdl dutiles, residing at 4-15. Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal,l Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner And:
Payala Srilnivasu, S/o Rajeswara Rao, age 35 yealrs, Residing at Door No.3-4- 26/1, Telephone Exchange street, Narasingaraopeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriK.Chandra Sekhar,K.Gangadhararao, Advocates for petitioner and of Sri V.Rajasekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called present.Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition in view of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Memo is recoraded and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.9 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-Husband to directing the respondent to come to the house of the petitioner and live with him for discharging her conjugal obligations and for costs of the petition.
Both parties called present. Petitioner filed memo not pressing this petition inveiw of the compromise arrived between the parties before the elders. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 22nd day of November, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 24 th day of October, 2017
HMOP.NO.49/2013
Between: Alla Swarulpa @ Varaha Lalitha Sawarupa,W/o Rama Chandra Prasad, Hindu, age 19 years, Household duties, residing at Door No.19-4-17, Buddha Prakasa Rao Naidu gari street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
Petitioner And:
Alla Rama Chandra Prasad, S/o China Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, physically handicapped, residing at Door No.50-83-10, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 16.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriBuddha Thrinadha Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.11 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 13.02.2013 due to non consummation of marriage as null and void and for costs of the petition.
Both parties calasled absent. No representation on either side .Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 24th day of October, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:19-11-2013 Date of Filing:25-11-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 24 th day of October, 2017
HMOP.NO.49/2013
Between: Alla Swarulpa @ Varaha Lalitha Sawarupa,W/o Rama Chandra Prasad, Hindu, age 19 years, Household duties, residing at Door No.19-4-17, Buddha Prakasa Rao Naidu gari street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
Petitioner And:
Alla Rama Chandra Prasad, S/o China Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, physically handicapped, residing at Door No.50-83-10, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 16.
Respondent
Petition filed under Sec.11 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 13.02.2013 due to non consummation of marriage as null and void and for costs of the petition.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 ils paid under Sch.II Art.I (Vii) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of SriBuddha Thrinadha Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri
K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of thi court, this the 24th day of October, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDSENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 24 th day of October, 2017
HMOP.NO.49/2013
Between: Alla Swarulpa @ Varaha Lalitha Sawarupa,W/o Rama Chandra Prasad, Hindu, age 19 years, Household duties, residing at Door No.19-4-17, Buddha Prakasa Rao Naidu gari street, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
Petitioner And:
Alla Rama Chandra Prasad, S/o China Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, physically handicapped, residing at Door No.50-83-10, Madhura Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 16.
Respondent
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of SriBuddha Thrinadha Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent.No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under Sec.11 of Hindu marriage Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent performed on 13.02.2013 due to non consummation of marriage as null and void and for costs of the petition.
Both parties calasled absent. No representation on either side .Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 24th day of October, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentatioin:22-11-2010 Date of Fililng: 22-11-2010
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 27 th day of December, 2017
LAOP.NO.125/2012 Between:
1) Sri Karaka Kalyanam S/o late Jaggunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram ,Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Karaka Sambhamurthy, S/o late Jagunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Claimants And:
Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition officer, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam Bayyavaram, Kasimkota, Visakhapatnam District.
Referring officer.
This is a reference made under Sec.30 &31 of Land Acquisition Act by the Special Tahasildar Land Acquisition Revenue Division Visakhapatnam for formation of Left canal to reservoir across Rangabolupgedda in Bayyavaram village for an extent of Ac.0.063/4 cents iln S.No.664/4B, 664/10/A ,Bayyavaram village of Kasimkota Mandal.
In this reference there are 2 (two) claimants.
The LAO deposited an amount of Rs.11,03,066-00 towards compensation amount for the Award No.22/2006 dated 20-12-2005 and the same was kept in
FDR of State Bank of India, Anakapalle.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in person and of Sri Asst.Government Pleader for Referring officer. Claimant called absent.
Claim statement not filed. No representation. Hence reference is closed and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that L.A.O.P petition be and thesame is hereby closed as claimant called absent No representation;
2) that there be no order as to costs.
Given under my handk and the seal of this court, this the 27th day of December, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR CLAIMANTS: FOR REFERING OFFICER;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 27 th day of December, 2017
LAOP.NO.125/2012 Between:
1) Sri Karaka Kalyanam S/o late Jaggunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram ,Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Karaka Sambhamurthy, S/o late Jagunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Claimants And:
Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition officer, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam Bayyavaram, Kasimkota, Visakhapatnam District.
Referring officer.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in person and of Sri Asst.Government Pleader for Referring officer. Claimant called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Hence reference ils closed and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a reference made under Sec.30 &31 of Land Acquisition Act by the Special Tahasildar Land Acquisition Revenue Division Visakhapatnam for formation of Left canal to reservoir across Rangabolupgedda in Bayyavaram village for an extent of Ac.0.063/4 cents iln S.No.664/4B, 664/10/A ,Bayyavaram village of Kasimkota Mandal.
In this reference there are 2 (two) claimants.
The LAO deposited an amount of Rs.11,03,066-00 towards compensation amount for the Award No.22/2006 dated 20-12-2005 and the same was kept in
FDR of State Bank of India, Anakapalle.
Claim statement not filed. Claimant called absent. No representation.
Perusal of record reveals the claimant present in person on 28.08.2012 thereafter matter ils posted for time to time for filing claim statement. So far no claim statement ils filled till today. Today also clailmant calaled absent. No representation. Hence reference is closed consign the record toi record room.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 27th day of December, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 5th day of January, 2018
SOP.NO.74/2017 Between: 1)Ganta Venkatesh,S/o late Neeladri Rao,lHilndu, age 21 years, unemployee, residing at D.No.3-3-69, NTR colony, Sirasapalli (village) Narasingaraopeta (PO) Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ganta Satyadevi,D/o Neeladri Rao, Hilndu, age 22 years, residing at D.No. 3-3-69, NTR colonyl, Sirasapalli village, Narasingaraopeta P.O. Visakhapatnam District. Petitioners And:
The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Visakha Steel City Depot, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam-5300046.
Respondant
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Apparao, Advocate for Petitioners. Petitioner called absent No representation and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1954.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners to issue succession certificate in favour of the petitioners to receive the amounts as shown in the schedule from the respondent and for other reliefs.
Petitioner called absent No representation hence petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 5th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:25-11-2017
Date of Filing:01-12-2017
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 5th day of January, 2018
SOP.NO.74/2017 Between: 1)Ganta Venkatesh,S/o late Neeladri Rao,lHilndu, age 21 years, unemployee, residing at D.No.3-3-69, NTR colony, Sirasapalli (village) Narasingaraopeta (PO) Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ganta Satyadevi,D/o Neeladri Rao, Hilndu, age 22 years, residing at D.No. 3-3-69, NTR colonyl, Sirasapalli village, Narasingaraopeta P.O. Visakhapatnam District. Petitioners And:
The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Visakha Steel City Depot, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam-5300046.
Respondant
This is a petition filed under 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1954.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners to issue succession certificate in favour of the petitioners to receive the amounts as shown in the schedule from the respondent and for other reliefs.
A court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Art.VII of Sch.I of APCF and SVAct.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.Apparao, Advocate for Petitioners. Petitioner called absent No representation and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 5th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:19-04-2014 Date of Filing:30-04-2014
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 19th day of January, 2018
HMOP.NO.26/2014
Between: Nanibilli Nookaraju,S/o late Baburao, Hindu, age 30 years, Driver, resident of Door No. Tegada village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner And:
Nanibilli Nagalakshmi,lW/o Nookaraju, Hindu, age 22 years, housewife, residing at C/o Pasupuleti Eswararao, Door No. Kandipudi villlage, Butchiyyapeta and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondant
This is a petition filed under Sec.13(1) (ia) and (ib) of H.M.Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners (a) for grant of decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent on 12.11.2011 on the ground of cruelty and desertion and for costs of the suit.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Art.IL (vii) Sch.II of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri K.S.Achari and Sri G.Krilshnaveni, Advocates for Petitioner and of Sri K.David, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent No representation on either side hence this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for defaualt;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 19th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 19th day of January, 2018
HMOP.NO.26/2014
Between: Nanibilli Nookaraju,S/o late Baburao, Hindu, age 30 years, Driver, resident of Door No. Tegada village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner And:
Nanibilli Nagalakshmi,lW/o Nookaraju, Hindu, age 22 years, housewife, residing at C/o Pasupuleti Eswararao, Door No. Kandipudi villlage, Butchiyyapeta and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondant
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.S.Achari and Sri G.Krilshnaveni, Advocates for Petitioner and of Sri K.David, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent No representation on either side hence this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Sec.13(1) (ia) and (ib) of H.M.Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners (a) for grant of decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent on 12.11.2011 on the ground of cruelty and desertion and for costs of the suit.
Both parties called absent No representation on either side hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:02-11-2005 Date of Filing:29-11-2005
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 31st day of August, 2017
I.P.No.13/2005 Between: Naga Manikyam wife of Tatayyalu, age 70 years, Hindu, No occupation, residing at Nagavamsam Veedhi, Anakapalle.
Petitioner. And:
1. Ravi Seshukumari, wife of Sreenivasarao, age 25 yearsl, Hindu, Household duties, residing at Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam-16.
2. Naga Laxmikantam, wife of Ramana,l age 35 years, Hindu, residing near Santabyalu, Vaddadi village, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Yelugula Ramana, son of Apparao, age 40 years, Allikhanudupalem, Anakapalle Mandal.
4. Rayi Bullemma, wife of Jagannadham, age 50 years, hindu, Lokavari veedhi, Anakapalle.
5.Nagumalla Sanyasamma, wife of Venkatarao, age 60 years, Hindu, Maturu village, Anakakpalle Mandal.
6.Kolluru Pramod Kumar, son of Narasingarao, age 35 years, Hindu, Main road,Anakapalle.
7.Palukuril Kamaraju, son of Sreeramamurthy,l age 35 years, Hindu, business, residing at Anjayya colony, Anakapalle.
Respondants.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents(a) to declare the petitioner as an insolvent and discharge her from her creditors and for costs of the petition.
A fixed court fees of Rs.50/- is paid on this petition under Sch.II.Article II of ACF and S.V.;Act. An amount of Rs.1500/- paid towards administrative charges and publication by way of challan No.2081, dated 28.10.2005.
This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri P.S.Kumar and Sri P.A.Narasimham, Advocates for Petitioner . As memo filed vide GR.No.1563/dt.07.07.2017 petitioner died and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the Insolvent petition be and the same is hereby closed as petitioner died;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( copy of petition A and B schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 31st day of August,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 31st day of August, 2017
I.P.No.13/2005 Between: Naga Manikyam wife of Tatayyalu, age 70 years, Hindu, No occupation, residing at Nagavamsam Veedhi, Anakapalle.
Petitioner. And:
1. Ravi Seshukumari, wife of Sreenivasarao, age 25 yearsl, Hindu, Household duties, residing at Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam-16.
2. Naga Laxmikantam, wife of Ramana,l age 35 years, Hindu, residing near Santabyalu, Vaddadi village, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Yelugula Ramana, son of Apparao, age 40 years, Allikhanudupalem, Anakapalle Mandal.
4. Rayi Bullemma, wife of Jagannadham, age 50 years, hindu, Lokavari veedhi, Anakapalle 5.Nagumalla Sanyasamma, wife of Venkatarao, age 60 years, Hindu, Maturu village, Anakakpalle Mandal. 6.Kolluru Pramod Kumar, son of Narasingarao, age 35 years, Hindu, Main road,Anakapalle. 7.Palukuril Kamaraju, son of Sreeramamurthy,l age 35 years, Hindu, business, residing at Anjayya colony, Anakapalle.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.S.Kumar and Sri P.A.Narasimham, Advocates for Petitioner . As memo filed vide GR.No.1563/dt.07.07.2017 petitioner died and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents(a) to declare the petitioner as an insolvent and discharge her from her creditors and for costs of the petition.
As memo filed vide GR.No.1563/dt.07.07.2017 as petitioner/insolvent died the petition is closed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 31st day of August, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 30-10-2012/15-11-2012 Date of Fililng: 15-11-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 22nd day of December,2017
I.P.No.04/2012 Between: 1.Vaddi Raju, S/o Appalaraju, age 35 years, residing at D.No.1-169, Ramakpuram colony, A.M.A.L.College road, Kothuru village andl panchayat, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner. And:
1. Afoz Bhanu,W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 35 years, Muslim, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C. Apartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle,Visakhapatnam District. 2.Md.Fathilma, husband’s namek not known to the petitioner, C/o Afoz Bhanu, W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 28 ayears, Hindu, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C.Akpartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Md. Ahamad, S/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 30 years, Muslim, residing at D.No. 7-48/1, Muslims steet, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4. M.Sameema, W/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 40 years, Muslim, residing at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5.Zameela Begum, D/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 25 years, Muslim, resilding at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar,l Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6.Shaik Halima, W/o Mohaddin,l age 30 years, Muslim care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, Pudimadaka raod, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. 7.Karim, father’s name not known to the petitioner,l age 28 years, Muslim, residing at care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, pudimadaka road, Anakapalle, Vilsakhapatnam Dilstrict.
8.A.Arjunarao, father’s name not known to the petitioner, age 32 years, Teacher in A.M.A.A. High School, residing at D.No.2-139, near K.L.N.Parlour, A.M.A.L. college road, Kothuru village, Anakapalle mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 9.Bobbili Anatha Lakshmi W/o Bobbilil Appalaraju, age 25 years, Hindu, Teacher,l residing at Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondants.
Petitioner to declare the as insolvent person ( indigent person) and discharge him from all of theliabilities and debts due to the respondents and or costs of the petition.
A court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Art.11(L)2(ili) of Sch.ILI of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri S.Narasingarao, I.R.Gangadhar, Advocates for Petitioner and petitioner called present filed memo not pressing the petition. Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the Insolvent petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( copy of petition A and B schedule hereto enclosed)
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of December,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 22nd day of December,2017
I.P.No.04/2012 Between: 1.Vaddi Raju, S/o Appalaraju, age 35 years, residing at D.No.1-169, Ramakpuram colony, A.M.A.L.College road, Kothuru village andl panchayat, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner. And:
1. Afoz Bhanu,W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 35 years, Muslim, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C. Apartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle,Visakhapatnam District. 2.Md.Fathilma, husband’s namek not known to the petitioner, C/o Afoz Bhanu, W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 28 ayears, Hindu, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C.Akpartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Md. Ahamad, S/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 30 years, Muslim, residing at D.No. 7-48/1, Muslims steet, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4. M.Sameema, W/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 40 years, Muslim, residing at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5.Zameela Begum, D/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 25 years, Muslim, resilding at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar,l Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6.Shaik Halima, W/o Mohaddin,l age 30 years, Muslim care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, Pudimadaka raod, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. 7.Karim, father’s name not known to the petitioner,l age 28 years, Muslim, residing at care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, pudimadaka road, Anakapalle, Vilsakhapatnam Dilstrict. 8.A.Arjunarao, father’s name not known to the petitioner, age 32 years, Teacher in A.M.A.A. High School, residing at D.No.2-139, near K.L.N.Parlour, A.M.A.L. college road, Kothuru village, Anakapalle mandal, Visakhapatnam
District. 9.Bobbili Anatha Lakshmi W/o Bobbilil Appalaraju, age 25 years, Hindu, Teacher,l residing at Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Narasingarao, I.R.Gangadhar, Advocates for Petitioner and petitioner called present filed memo not pressing the petition. Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petitioner to declare the as insolvent person ( indigent person) and discharge him from all of theliabilities and debts due to the respondents; and or costs of the suit.
Petitioner called present filed memo not pressing the petition. Heard.
Memo is recorded. This petition dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of December,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentatioin:21-03-2012
Date of Filing:09-04-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this thw 24th day of January, 2018.
I.P.No.01/2012 Between: 1.Doddi Naga Mophana Rao, S/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 32 years, cultivation, residing at Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal. 2.Polamarasetty Adi Murthy, S/o Apparao, Hindu, age 35 yealrs, cultivation, residing at Teacher’s colonyl, 3rd line, Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal.
3.Yellapu Sasi Bhushanam Rao, S/o late Kondala Rao, Hindu, age 47 years, residing at D.No.15-19-6, P.V.R.Naidu street, Opp. Women college, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli. Petitioners. And:
1.Yellapu Mangayyamma,W/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 48 years, business, residing at D.No.2-13-13,l Bo;ddeda vari veedhi,l Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalli. 2.Yellapu Venkata Nooka Apparao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, business, rest-do-
3. Yellapu Vani, W/o Venkata Nooka Appa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, business, C/o Pentakota Ramana, D.No.6-42-4, TVN colony,besides drivaer’s colony, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Adari Tilak, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, Business, residing at C/o Adari Rama Ra;o, Door No.14-13, Opp. Pada Gas Godown Court veedhi, Gandhinagaram, Anakapalli.
5. Yellapu Rama Krishna, S/o late Nooka Raju, Hindu, age 42 years, employee, residing at Door No.2-13-13 rest -do-.
Respondants.
This is a petition filed U/Sec.9 of provincial Insolvency Act praying to adjudge the respondent No.1 as insolvent ;(b) to appoint an interim receiver in respect of the estate of 1st respondent i.e. “B” schedule property; (c) to make an order directing the official receiver to take actual physical possession over the”B” schedule property.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 is paid thereon under Sectilon 20 ScheduleI
Art.II(a) of APCF and S.V.Act. Administrative charges of Rs.2000/- is paid vide challan No.6604 dated 29.03.2012.
This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Budha Trinadha Rao, Advocate for Petiltioners and No evidence isfiled the petitioners called absent No representatilon and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the Insolvency petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of petition A and B schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 24th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this thw 24th day of January, 2018.
I.P.No.01/2012 Between: 1.Doddi Naga Mophana Rao, S/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 32 years, cultivation, residing at Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal. 2.Polamarasetty Adi Murthy, S/o Apparao, Hindu, age 35 yealrs, cultivation, residing at Teacher’s colonyl, 3rd line, Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal.
3.Yellapu Sasi Bhushanam Rao, S/o late Kondala Rao, Hindu, age 47 years, residing at D.No.15-19-6, P.V.R.Naidu street, Opp. Women college, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli. Petitioners. And:
1.Yellapu Mangayyamma,W/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 48 years, business, residing at D.No.2-13-13,l Bo;ddeda vari veedhi,l Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalli. 2.Yellapu Venkata Nooka Apparao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, business, rest-do-
3. Yellapu Vani, W/o Venkata Nooka Appa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, business, C/o Pentakota Ramana, D.No.6-42-4, TVN colony,besides drivaer’s colony, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Adari Tilak, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, Business, residing at C/o Adari Rama Ra;o, Door No.14-13, Opp. Pada Gas Godown Court veedhi, Gandhinagaram, Anakapalli.
5. Yellapu Rama Krishna, S/o late Nooka Raju, Hindu, age 42 years, employee, residing at Door No.2-13-13 rest -do-.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Budha Trinadha Rao, Advocate for Petiltioners and No evidence isfiled the petitioners called absent No representatilon and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed U/Sec.9 of provincial Insolvency Act praying to adjudge the respondent No.1 as insolvent ;(b) to appoint an interim receiver in respect of the estate of 1st respondent i.e. “B” schedule property; (c) to make an order directing the official receiver to take actual physical possession over the”B” schedule property.
No evidence is filed the petitioner called absent No representation. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 20-10-2014 Date of Filing:20-04-2014
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.263/2014
Between: Penmetsa Vishnukumar Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju, age 53 years, residing at Plot No.A-19, D.No.50-104-1/9, Seeethammadhara N.E.Layout, Visakhapatnam-13. Plaintiff. And:
1.Karri Bangarunaidu S/o Ramunaidu, age 52 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Karri Ramprasad S/o Ramunaidu, age 44 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
Suit filed by the plaintilff against the defendants(a) to pass a decree to directilng the defendants to execute the register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaintk kschedule property interms of the agreement of sale executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff within time fixed by the court (b) in case if the defendants fail to execute and register a sale deed, the court may itself execute and register a sale deed for aand on behalf of the defendants in respect of theplailant schedule at the expenses of the plaintiff
(c) to put the plaiantiff’s in possessilon of the plailnt schedule after evicting the defendants therefrom (d) alternatively, if the court feels that for any reason, the relief of specific performance could not be awarded, directing the defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,24,160/- paid by the plaintiff under the agreement of sale dtogether with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the agreement of sale till date of full land final reliazation and for costs of the suilt.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is valued at
Rs.5,24,160-00 and a court fee of Rs.7726/- is being paid under Sec.39, r/w
Sch.I Art.I (b) & (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi and Sri V.Viswanadham,Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri
M.Srinivasarao and M.V.R.Bhupathirao, Advocates for 1st defendant and of Sri
S.P.Naidu and R.Appalanaidu, Advocates for 2nd defendant . Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit claim. Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 01st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.263/2014
Between: Penmetsa Vishnukumar Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju, age 53 years,residing at Plot No.A-19, D.No.50-104-1/9, Seeethammadhara N.E.Layout, Visakhapatnam-13. Plaintiff. And:
1.Karri Bangarunaidu S/o Ramunaidu, age 52 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Karri Ramprasad S/o Ramunaidu, age 44 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi and Sri V.Viswanadham,Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri M.Srinivasarao and M.V.R.Bhupathirao, Advocates for 1st defendant and of Sri S.P.Naidu and R.Appalanaidu, Advocates for 2nd defendant . Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit claim. Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintilff against the defendants(a) to pass a decree to directilng the defendants to execute the register a sale deed iln favour of the plailntiff in respect of the plaintk kschedule property ilnterms of the agreement of sale executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff withiln time fixed by the court (b) in case if the defendants fail to execute and register a sale deed, the court may itself execute and register a sale deed for aand on behalf of the defendants in respect of theplailant schedule at the expenses of the plaintiff (c) to put the plaiantiff’s in possessilon of the plailnt schedule after evicting the defendants therefrom (d) alternatively, if the court feels that for any reason, the relief of specific performance could not be awarded, directing the defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,24,160/- paid by the plaintiff under the agreement of sale dtogether with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the agreement of sale till date of full land final reliazattion and for costs of the suilt.
Plaintiff filed a memo not press the suit claim as matter was settled out of court. Hence memo is recorded the suilt is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.199/2012
Between: Vennela Pydamma,W/o Somulu, Hindu, age 65 years, household duties, resildilng at D.No.8-4, Mettapalem village, lH/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Paraawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Eerla Sreeramulu,S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 52 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.7-56,Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steet project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
2.Eerla Suryanarayana, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 50 years, cultivation, residilng at D.No.7-55, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
3.Eerla Vonumulu, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 48 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.30-71-1, Appikonda RH colonyll, Vadlapudi, Gajuwakal Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
4. Kundrapu Somulamma, W/o Mutyalu, Hindu, age 62 years, housewife, residing at D.No.30-7-1, Appikonda RH colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
5.Kundrapu Simhachalam W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 86 years, residing at Door No.7-5, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project office, Visakhapatnam-31.
6. Geddam Kpentamma, W/o Simhachalam, age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.5-4, Hastinapuram, H/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Ramineni Venkateswararao, S/o Basavayya, Hindu, age 45 years, business, resilding at D.No.10-32-6, Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya and Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.7 and defendants 1,3,4,6 remind exparte and suit against defendant 2 and 5 dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties at metes and bounds into seven equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and such equal shares dto thedefendants 1 to 6, and deliver separate possession ofk such share so allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 on converting the joint possession into separate possession; for profits that can be determined by way of separate application; and for costs of the suit.
PW.1 called absent No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 31st day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFF:-
P.W.1/ dt.8.12.2017 - Vennela Pydamma W/o Somulu.(Chief examination only)
FOR DEFENDANT:- NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 16-08-2012
Date of Filing:16-08-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.199/2012
Between: Vennela Pydamma,W/o Somulu, Hindu, age 65 years, household duties, resildilng at D.No.8-4, Mettapalem village, lH/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Paraawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Eerla Sreeramulu,S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 52 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.7-56, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steet project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
2.Eerla Suryanarayana, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 50 years, cultivation, residilng at D.No.7-55, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
3.Eerla Vonumulu, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 48 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.30-71-1, Appikonda RH colonyll, Vadlapudi, Gajuwakal Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
4. Kundrapu Somulamma, W/o Mutyalu, Hindu, age 62 years, housewife, residing at D.No.30-7-1, Appikonda RH colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
5.Kundrapu Simhachalam W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 86 years, residing at Door No.7-5, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project office, Visakhapatnam-31.
6. Geddam Kpentamma, W/o Simhachalam, age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.5-4, Hastinapuram, H/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Ramineni Venkateswararao, S/o Basavayya, Hindu, age 45 years, business, resilding at D.No.10-32-6, Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
Suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties at metes and bounds into seven equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and such equal shares dto thedefendants 1 to 6, and deliver separate possession ofk such share so allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 on converting the joint possession into separate possession; for profits that can be determined by way of separate application; and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction of this court
Valuel of the plaint schedule property consisting of Ac.5.00 cents and @
Rs.15,00,000/- per acre as per basic value register Rs. 16,05,000-00
Plaintiff’s 1/7th share Rs. 10,71,428-00 3/4th value share Rs. 8,03,571-00
C.F. of Rs.10,826-00 is payable, but a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid under
Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya and Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri
A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.7 and defendants 1,3,4,6 remind exparte and suit against defendant 2 and 5 dismissed for default and this Court doth order and ;
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and theseal of this court, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.189/2017
Between: Chekuri Ramaraju S/o Venkata Raju @ Venkatarao, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, resident of D.No.1-38, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Gogula Srinivas S/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, age 49 years, resident of D.No.1- 113, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram & Sri BSVRajagopal,Advocates for plaintiff. Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit . Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery oif
Rs.6,84,333/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note
dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of
plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
I.A59 /2018 is allowed. Accordingly the matter is advanced to today from 23.02.2018.
The plaintiff is present. Plaintiff filed memo not pressing the suit as matter was settled out of court. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly suit is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:19-12-2017
Date of Filing:19-12-2017
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.189/2017
Between: Chekuri Ramaraju S/o Venkata Raju @ Venkatarao, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, resident of D.No.1-38, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Gogula Srinivas S/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, age 49 years, resident of D.No.1- 113, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery oif
Rs.6,84,333/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note
dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of
plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is
Rs.6,84,333/- and a court fee of Rs.9,326/- is paid under Section 20 r/w Art.I(a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram & Sri B.S.V.Rajagopal, Advocates for plaintiff. Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit . Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs;
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.255/2013
Between: Panduri Satyarao S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, age 69 years, retired MPDO, Sabbavaram, N/o Venkatapuram village Munagapaka Mandal, presently, residing at D.No.14-38-1/A, Plot No.303, Viswanadh Residency, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2. Plaintiff. And:
1. Panduri Kanaka Apparao,s/o Late Nookaiah, Hindu, age 45 years, Resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Panduri Ramalakshmi W/o Kanaka Apparao, Hindu, age 40 years, resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Chinni China Appalanaidu @ Innabbai,S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, age 69 yearls, resident of Venkatapuram village, via; Paravada, Thanam post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.V.R.Joga rao and Mr.R.Atchutharamaiah, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate of defendants. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the item No.6 of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants their men, agents servants there from; for future profits till the delivaery of the possession of item No.6 of schedule property as to be determined in a separate enquiry under order 20 R.12 of CPC; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. PW1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suilt is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW1/ Dt.9-6-2017/Panduri Satya Rao, S/o Simhachalam (chief affidavit only)
FOR DEFENDANT: NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 26-12-2013 Date of Filing: 26-12-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.255/2013
Between: Panduri Satyarao S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, age 69 years, retired MPDO, Sabbavaram, N/o Venkatapuram village Munagapaka Mandal, presently, residing at D.No.14-38-1/A, Plot No.303, Viswanadh Residency, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2. Plaintiff. And:
1. Panduri Kanaka Apparao,s/o Late Nookaiah, Hindu, age 45 years, Resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Panduri Ramalakshmi W/o Kanaka Apparao, Hindu, age 40 years, resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Chinni China Appalanaidu @ Innabbai,S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, age 69 yearls, resident of Venkatapuram village, via; Paravada, Thanam post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the item No.6 of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants their men, agents servants there from; for future profits till the delivaery of the possession of item No.6 of schedule property as to be determined in a separate enquiry under order 20 R.12 of CPC; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suilt for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is
Rs.10,000/- for relief of permanent injunction and Rs.1,20,000/- being 3/4th market value for relief of declaration and possession and CF of Rs.4,412/- is paid under Sec.26 (c) & 24(a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
Total value of item-6 property Rs. 1,60,000-00 3/4th of the Market value is Rs. 1,20,000-00
Notional value of items 1 to 5 Rs. 10,000-00
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri B.V.R.Joga rao and Mr.R.Atchutharamaiah, Advocates for plaintiff and of
Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate of defendants. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the suilt be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.221/2013
Between: Gulla Sreeram Murthy S/o Chellanna Dora, Hindu, age 33 years, cultivation, resident of Door No.3-16, Buddibanda village H/o Kovagunta village, Vommali Jagannadhapuram post, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Konathala Radhabhai, W/o Seetharam, Hindu, age years, House wife, resident of Door No.2-95, Sampathipuram village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Central Bank of India, Main branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Ch.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation on either side.Hence the suilt is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.05.2005 by directing thedefendant to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp paper and register the samek in respect of the plaint schedule property in favoudr of the plaintiff and to do all the acts necaessary to put the plaintiff in possession with such time as the court fixes, ilf the 1st defendant, fails to execute the regular sale deed, the court may execute the same at the costs of the plaintiffl and recover the same from thedefendant (b) for an alternative relief foir refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the 1st defendant and for costs of the suilt.
Costs not paid. PW1 called absent. No representation on either side.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIl
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of presentation:22-11-2013 Date of Filing :22-11-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.221/2013
Between: Gulla Sreeram Murthy S/o Chellanna Dora, Hindu, age 33 years, cultivation, resident of Door No.3-16, Buddibanda village H/o Kovagunta village, Vommali Jagannadhapuram post, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Konathala Radhabhai, W/o Seetharam, Hindu, age years, House wife, resident of Door No.2-95, Sampathipuram village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Central Bank of India, Main branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its
Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.05.2005 by directing thedefendant to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp paper and register the samek in respect of the plaint schedule property in favoudr of the plaintiff and to do all the acts necaessary to put the plaintiff in possession with such time as the court fixes, ilf the 1st defendant, fails to execute the regular sale deed, the court may execute the same at the costs of the plaintiffl and recover the same from thedefendant (b) for an alternative relief foir refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the 1st defendant and for costs of the suilt.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is
Rs.4,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.6,426/- is paid under Sec.39 of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri
Ch.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation on either side. Hence the suilt is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of Plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:22-11-2010 Date of Filing: 22-11-2010
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle
Wednesday, this the 27 th day of December, 2017
LAOP.NO.125/2012 Between:
1) Sri Karaka Kalyanam S/o late Jaggunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram ,Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Karaka Sambhamurthy, S/o late Jagunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Claimants And:
Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition officer, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam Bayyavaram, Kasimkota, Visakhapatnam District.
Referring officer.
This is a reference made under Sec.30 &31 of Land Acquisition Act by the Special Tahasildar Land Acquisition Revenue Division Visakhapatnam for formation of Left canal to reservoir across Rangabolupgedda in Bayyavaram village for an extent of Ac.0.063/4 cents iln S.No.664/4B, 664/10/A ,Bayyavaram village of Kasimkota Mandal.
In this reference there are 2 (two) claimants.
The LAO deposited an amount of Rs.11,03,066-00 towards compensation amount for the Award No.22/2006 dated 20-12-2005 and the same was kept in
FDR of State Bank of India, Anakapalle.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in person and of Sri Asst.Government Pleader for Referring officer. Claimant called absent.
Claim statement not filed. No representation. Hence reference is closed and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that L.A.O.P petition be and the same is hereby closed as claimant called absent No representation;
2) that there be no order as to costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 27th day of December, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR CLAIMANTS: FOR REFERING OFFICER;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 27 th day of December, 2017
LAOP.NO.125/2012 Between:
1) Sri Karaka Kalyanam S/o late Jaggunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram ,Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Karaka Sambhamurthy, S/o late Jagunaidu, Jamudulapalem village, Bayyavaram, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Claimants And:
Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition officer, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam Bayyavaram, Kasimkota, Visakhapatnam District.
Referring officer.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in person and of Sri Asst.Government Pleader for Referring officer. Claimant called absent. Claim statement not filed. No representation. Hence reference ils closed and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a reference made under Sec.30 &31 of Land Acquisition Act by the Special Tahasildar Land Acquisition Revenue Division Visakhapatnam for formation of Left canal to reservoir across Rangabolupgedda in Bayyavaram village for an extent of Ac.0.063/4 cents iln S.No.664/4B, 664/10/A ,Bayyavaram village of Kasimkota Mandal.
In this reference there are 2 (two) claimants.
The LAO deposited an amount of Rs.11,03,066-00 towards compensation amount for the Award No.22/2006 dated 20-12-2005 and the same was kept in
FDR of State Bank of India, Anakapalle.
Claim statement not filed. Claimant called absent. No representation.
Perusal of record reveals the claimant present in person on 28.08.2012 thereafter matter ils posted for time to time for filing claim statement. So far no claim statement ils filled till today. Today also clailmant calaled absent. No representation. Hence reference is closed consign the record toi record room.
Pronounced by me in open court, thisthe 27th day of December, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 5th day of January, 2018
SOP.NO.74/2017 Between: 1)Ganta Venkatesh,S/o late Neeladri Rao,lHilndu, age 21 years, unemployee, residing at D.No.3-3-69, NTR colony, Sirasapalli (village) Narasingaraopeta (PO) Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ganta Satyadevi,D/o Neeladri Rao, Hilndu, age 22 years, residing at D.No. 3-3-69, NTR colonyl, Sirasapalli village, Narasingaraopeta P.O. Visakhapatnam District. Petitioners And:
The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Visakha Steel City Depot, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam-5300046.
Respondant
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Apparao, Advocate for Petitioners. Petitioner called absent No representation and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1954.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners to issue succession certificate in favour of the petitioners to receive the amounts as shown in the schedule from the respondent and for other reliefs.
Petitioner called absent No representation hence petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 5th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:25-11-2017
Date of Filing:01-12-2017
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 5th day of January, 2018
SOP.NO.74/2017 Between: 1)Ganta Venkatesh,S/o late Neeladri Rao,lHilndu, age 21 years, unemployee, residing at D.No.3-3-69, NTR colony, Sirasapalli (village) Narasingaraopeta (PO) Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ganta Satyadevi,D/o Neeladri Rao, Hilndu, age 22 years, residing at D.No. 3-3-69, NTR colonyl, Sirasapalli village, Narasingaraopeta P.O. Visakhapatnam District. Petitioners And:
The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Visakha Steel City Depot, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam-5300046.
Respondant
This is a petition filed under 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1954.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners to issue succession certificate in favour of the petitioners to receive the amounts as shown in the schedule from the respondent and for other reliefs.
A court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Art.VII of Sch.I of APCF and SVAct.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.Apparao, Advocate for Petitioners. Petitioner called absent No representation and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 5th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:19-04-2014 Date of Filing:30-04-2014
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 19th day of January, 2018
HMOP.NO.26/2014
Between: Nanibilli Nookaraju,S/o late Baburao, Hindu, age 30 years, Driver, resident of Door No. Tegada village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner And:
Nanibilli Nagalakshmi,lW/o Nookaraju, Hindu, age 22 years, housewife, residing at C/o Pasupuleti Eswararao, Door No. Kandipudi villlage, Butchiyyapeta and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondant
This is a petition filed under Sec.13(1) (ia) and (ib) of H.M.Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners (a) for grant of decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent on 12.11.2011 on the ground of cruelty and desertion and for costs of the suit.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Art.IL (vii) Sch.II of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri K.S.Achari and Sri G.Krilshnaveni, Advocates for Petitioner and of Sri K.David, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent No representation on either side hence this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for defaualt;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 19th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 19th day of January, 2018
HMOP.NO.26/2014
Between: Nanibilli Nookaraju,S/o late Baburao, Hindu, age 30 years, Driver, resident of Door No. Tegada village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner And:
Nanibilli Nagalakshmi,lW/o Nookaraju, Hindu, age 22 years, housewife, residing at C/o Pasupuleti Eswararao, Door No. Kandipudi villlage, Butchiyyapeta and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondant
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.S.Achari and Sri G.Krilshnaveni, Advocates for Petitioner and of Sri K.David, Advocate for Respondent. Both parties called absent No representation on either side hence this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Sec.13(1) (ia) and (ib) of H.M.Act.
This is a petition filed by the petitioners (a) for grant of decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent on 12.11.2011 on the ground of cruelty and desertion and for costs of the suit.
Both parties called absent No representation on either side hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:02-11-2005 Date of Filing:29-11-2005
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 31st day of August, 2017
I.P.No.13/2005 Between: Naga Manikyam wife of Tatayyalu, age 70 years, Hindu, No occupation, residing at Nagavamsam Veedhi, Anakapalle.
Petitioner. And:
1. Ravi Seshukumari, wife of Sreenivasarao, age 25 yearsl, Hindu, Household duties, residing at Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam-16.
2. Naga Laxmikantam, wife of Ramana,l age 35 years, Hindu, residing near Santabyalu, Vaddadi village, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Yelugula Ramana, son of Apparao, age 40 years, Allikhanudupalem, Anakapalle Mandal.
4. Rayi Bullemma, wife of Jagannadham, age 50 years, hindu, Lokavari veedhi, Anakapalle.
5.Nagumalla Sanyasamma, wife of Venkatarao, age 60 years, Hindu, Maturu village, Anakakpalle Mandal.
6.Kolluru Pramod Kumar, son of Narasingarao, age 35 years, Hindu, Main road,Anakapalle.
7.Palukuril Kamaraju, son of Sreeramamurthy,l age 35 years, Hindu, business, residing at Anjayya colony, Anakapalle.
Respondants.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents(a) to declare the petitioner as an insolvent and discharge her from her creditors and for costs of the petition.
A fixed court fees of Rs.50/- is paid on this petition under Sch.II.Article II of ACF and S.V.;Act. An amount of Rs.1500/- paid towards administrative charges and publication by way of challan No.2081, dated 28.10.2005.
This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri P.S.Kumar and Sri P.A.Narasimham, Advocates for Petitioner . As memo filed vide GR.No.1563/dt.07.07.2017 petitioner died and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the Insolvent petition be and the same is hereby closed as petitioner died;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( copy of petition A and B schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 31st day of August,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 31st day of August, 2017
I.P.No.13/2005 Between: Naga Manikyam wife of Tatayyalu, age 70 years, Hindu, No occupation, residing at Nagavamsam Veedhi, Anakapalle.
Petitioner. And:
1. Ravi Seshukumari, wife of Sreenivasarao, age 25 yearsl, Hindu, Household duties, residing at Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam-16.
2. Naga Laxmikantam, wife of Ramana,l age 35 years, Hindu, residing near Santabyalu, Vaddadi village, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Yelugula Ramana, son of Apparao, age 40 years, Allikhanudupalem, Anakapalle Mandal.
4. Rayi Bullemma, wife of Jagannadham, age 50 years, hindu, Lokavari veedhi, Anakapalle 5.Nagumalla Sanyasamma, wife of Venkatarao, age 60 years, Hindu, Maturu village, Anakakpalle Mandal. 6.Kolluru Pramod Kumar, son of Narasingarao, age 35 years, Hindu, Main road,Anakapalle. 7.Palukuril Kamaraju, son of Sreeramamurthy,l age 35 years, Hindu, business, residing at Anjayya colony, Anakapalle.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.S.Kumar and Sri P.A.Narasimham, Advocates for Petitioner . As memo filed vide GR.No.1563/dt.07.07.2017 petitioner died and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents(a) to declare the petitioner as an insolvent and discharge her from her creditors and for costs of the petition.
As memo filed vide GR.No.1563/dt.07.07.2017 as petitioner/insolvent died the petition is closed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 31st day of August, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 30-10-2012/15-11-2012 Date of Fililng: 15-11-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 22nd day of December,2017
I.P.No.04/2012 Between: 1.Vaddi Raju, S/o Appalaraju, age 35 years, residing at D.No.1-169, Ramakpuram colony, A.M.A.L.College road, Kothuru village andl panchayat, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner. And:
1. Afoz Bhanu,W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 35 years, Muslim, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C. Apartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle,Visakhapatnam District. 2.Md.Fathilma, husband’s namek not known to the petitioner, C/o Afoz Bhanu, W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 28 ayears, Hindu, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C.Akpartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Md. Ahamad, S/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 30 years, Muslim, residing at D.No. 7-48/1, Muslims steet, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal,
Visakhapatnam District.
4. M.Sameema, W/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 40 years, Muslim, residing at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5.Zameela Begum, D/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 25 years, Muslim, resilding at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar,l Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6.Shaik Halima, W/o Mohaddin,l age 30 years, Muslim care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, Pudimadaka raod, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. 7.Karim, father’s name not known to the petitioner,l age 28 years, Muslim, residing at care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, pudimadaka road, Anakapalle, Vilsakhapatnam Dilstrict. 8.A.Arjunarao, father’s name not known to the petitioner, age 32 years, Teacher in A.M.A.A. High School, residing at D.No.2-139, near K.L.N.Parlour, A.M.A.L. college road, Kothuru village, Anakapalle mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 9.Bobbili Anatha Lakshmi W/o Bobbilil Appalaraju, age 25 years, Hindu, Teacher,l residing at Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondants.
Petitioner to declare the as insolvent person ( indigent person) and discharge him from all of theliabilities and debts due to the respondents and or costs of the petition.
A court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Art.11(L)2(ili) of Sch.ILI of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri S.Narasingarao, I.R.Gangadhar, Advocates for Petitioner and petitioner called present filed memo not pressing the petition. Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the Insolvent petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( copy of petition A and B schedule hereto enclosed)
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of December,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 22nd day of December,2017
I.P.No.04/2012 Between: 1.Vaddi Raju, S/o Appalaraju, age 35 years, residing at D.No.1-169, Ramakpuram colony, A.M.A.L.College road, Kothuru village andl panchayat, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner. And:
1. Afoz Bhanu,W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 35 years, Muslim, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C. Apartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle,Visakhapatnam District. 2.Md.Fathilma, husband’s namek not known to the petitioner, C/o Afoz Bhanu, W/o Muzzafer Shariff, age 28 ayears, Hindu, residing at Flat No.F.2, K.C.Akpartments, near Saibaba Temple, Sarada Nagar, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Md. Ahamad, S/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 30 years, Muslim, residing at D.No. 7-48/1, Muslims steet, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4. M.Sameema, W/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 40 years, Muslim, residing at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar, Kasimkota village and mandal,
Visakhapatnam District. 5.Zameela Begum, D/o Md.Abdul Rawoof, age 25 years, Muslim, resilding at D.No.7-48/1, Muslims street, Pedda Bazar,l Kasimkota village and mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6.Shaik Halima, W/o Mohaddin,l age 30 years, Muslim care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, Pudimadaka raod, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. 7.Karim, father’s name not known to the petitioner,l age 28 years, Muslim, residing at care of M.Swarna Lakshmi, Teacher, opposite Ramalayam, D.No.12-4-105, pudimadaka road, Anakapalle, Vilsakhapatnam Dilstrict. 8.A.Arjunarao, father’s name not known to the petitioner, age 32 years, Teacher in A.M.A.A. High School, residing at D.No.2-139, near K.L.N.Parlour, A.M.A.L. college road, Kothuru village, Anakapalle mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 9.Bobbili Anatha Lakshmi W/o Bobbilil Appalaraju, age 25 years, Hindu, Teacher,l residing at Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Narasingarao, I.R.Gangadhar, Advocates for Petitioner and petitioner called present filed memo not pressing the petition. Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petitioner to declare the as insolvent person ( indigent person) and discharge him from all of theliabilities and debts due to the respondents; and or costs of the suit.
Petitioner called present filed memo not pressing the petition. Heard.
Memo is recorded. This petition dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of December,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentatioin:21-03-2012
Date of Filing:09-04-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this thw 24th day of January, 2018.
I.P.No.01/2012 Between: 1.Doddi Naga Mophana Rao, S/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 32 years, cultivation, residing at Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal. 2.Polamarasetty Adi Murthy, S/o Apparao, Hindu, age 35 yealrs, cultivation, residing at Teacher’s colonyl, 3rd line, Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal.
3.Yellapu Sasi Bhushanam Rao, S/o late Kondala Rao, Hindu, age 47 years, residing at D.No.15-19-6, P.V.R.Naidu street, Opp. Women college, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli. Petitioners. And:
1.Yellapu Mangayyamma,W/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 48 years, business, residing at D.No.2-13-13,l Bo;ddeda vari veedhi,l Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalli. 2.Yellapu Venkata Nooka Apparao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, business, rest-do-
3. Yellapu Vani, W/o Venkata Nooka Appa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, business, C/o Pentakota Ramana, D.No.6-42-4, TVN colony,besides drivaer’s colony, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Adari Tilak, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, Business, residing at C/o Adari Rama Ra;o, Door No.14-13, Opp. Pada Gas Godown Court veedhi, Gandhinagaram, Anakapalli.
5. Yellapu Rama Krishna, S/o late Nooka Raju, Hindu, age 42 years, employee, residing at Door No.2-13-13 rest -do-.
Respondants.
This is a petition filed U/Sec.9 of provincial Insolvency Act praying to adjudge the respondent No.1 as insolvent ;(b) to appoint an interim receiver in respect of the estate of 1st respondent i.e. “B” schedule property; (c) to make an order directing the official receiver to take actual physical possession over the”B” schedule property.
A fixed court fee of Rs.10-00 is paid thereon under Sectilon 20 ScheduleI
Art.II(a) of APCF and S.V.Act. Administrative charges of Rs.2000/- is paid vide challan No.6604 dated 29.03.2012.
This petiltion coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Budha Trinadha Rao, Advocate for Petiltioners and No evidence isfiled the petitioners called absent No representatilon and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the Insolvency petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of petition A and B schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 24th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this thw 24th day of January, 2018.
I.P.No.01/2012 Between: 1.Doddi Naga Mophana Rao, S/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 32 years, cultivation, residing at Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal. 2.Polamarasetty Adi Murthy, S/o Apparao, Hindu, age 35 yealrs, cultivation, residing at Teacher’s colonyl, 3rd line, Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal.
3.Yellapu Sasi Bhushanam Rao, S/o late Kondala Rao, Hindu, age 47 years, residing at D.No.15-19-6, P.V.R.Naidu street, Opp. Women college, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli. Petitioners. And:
1.Yellapu Mangayyamma,W/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, age 48 years, business, residing at D.No.2-13-13,l Bo;ddeda vari veedhi,l Vijayaramarajupeta, Anakapalli. 2.Yellapu Venkata Nooka Apparao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 30 years, business, rest-do-
3. Yellapu Vani, W/o Venkata Nooka Appa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, business, C/o Pentakota Ramana, D.No.6-42-4, TVN colony,besides drivaer’s colony, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Adari Tilak, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, age 23 years, Business, residing at C/o Adari Rama Ra;o, Door No.14-13, Opp. Pada Gas Godown Court veedhi, Gandhinagaram, Anakapalli.
5. Yellapu Rama Krishna, S/o late Nooka Raju, Hindu, age 42 years, employee, residing at Door No.2-13-13 rest -do-.
Respondants.
This petiltion coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Budha Trinadha Rao, Advocate for Petiltioners and No evidence isfiled the petitioners called absent No representatilon and this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed U/Sec.9 of provincial Insolvency Act praying to adjudge the respondent No.1 as insolvent ;(b) to appoint an interim receiver in respect of the estate of 1st respondent i.e. “B” schedule property; (c) to make an order directing the official receiver to take actual physical possession over the”B” schedule property.
No evidence is filed the petitioner called absent No representation. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 20-10-2014 Date of Filing:20-04-2014
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.263/2014
Between: Penmetsa Vishnukumar Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju, age 53 years, residing at Plot No.A-19, D.No.50-104-1/9, Seeethammadhara N.E.Layout, Visakhapatnam-13. Plaintiff.
And:
1.Karri Bangarunaidu S/o Ramunaidu, age 52 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Karri Ramprasad S/o Ramunaidu, age 44 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
Suit filed by the plaintilff against the defendants(a) to pass a decree to directilng the defendants to execute the register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaintk kschedule property interms of the agreement of sale executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff within time fixed by the court (b) in case if the defendants fail to execute and register a sale deed, the court may itself execute and register a sale deed for aand on behalf of the defendants in respect of theplailant schedule at the expenses of the plaintiff
(c) to put the plaiantiff’s in possessilon of the plailnt schedule after evicting the defendants therefrom (d) alternatively, if the court feels that for any reason, the relief of specific performance could not be awarded, directing the defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,24,160/- paid by the plaintiff under the agreement of sale dtogether with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the agreement of sale till date of full land final reliazation and for costs of the suilt.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is valued at
Rs.5,24,160-00 and a court fee of Rs.7726/- is being paid under Sec.39, r/w
Sch.I Art.I (b) & (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi and Sri V.Viswanadham,Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri
M.Srinivasarao and M.V.R.Bhupathirao, Advocates for 1st defendant and of Sri
S.P.Naidu and R.Appalanaidu, Advocates for 2nd defendant . Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit claim. Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 01st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.263/2014
Between:
Penmetsa Vishnukumar Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju, age 53 years,residing at Plot No.A-19, D.No.50-104-1/9, Seeethammadhara N.E.Layout, Visakhapatnam-13. Plaintiff. And:
1.Karri Bangarunaidu S/o Ramunaidu, age 52 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Karri Ramprasad S/o Ramunaidu, age 44 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi and Sri V.Viswanadham,Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri M.Srinivasarao and M.V.R.Bhupathirao, Advocates for 1st defendant and of Sri S.P.Naidu and R.Appalanaidu, Advocates for 2nd defendant . Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit claim. Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintilff against the defendants(a) to pass a decree to directilng the defendants to execute the register a sale deed iln favour of the plailntiff in respect of the plaintk kschedule property ilnterms of the agreement of sale executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff withiln time fixed by the court (b) in case if the defendants fail to execute and register a sale deed, the court may itself execute and register a sale deed for aand on behalf of the defendants in respect of theplailant schedule at the expenses of the plaintiff (c) to put the plaiantiff’s in possessilon of the plailnt schedule after evicting the defendants therefrom (d) alternatively, if the court feels that for any reason, the relief of specific performance could not be awarded, directing the defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,24,160/- paid by the plaintiff under the agreement of sale dtogether with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the agreement of sale till date of full land final reliazattion and for costs of the suilt.
Plaintiff filed a memo not press the suit claim as matter was settled out of court. Hence memo is recorded the suilt is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.199/2012
Between: Vennela Pydamma,W/o Somulu, Hindu, age 65 years, household duties, resildilng at D.No.8-4, Mettapalem village, lH/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Paraawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Eerla Sreeramulu,S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 52 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.7-56,Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steet project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
2.Eerla Suryanarayana, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 50 years, cultivation, residilng at D.No.7-55, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
3.Eerla Vonumulu, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 48 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.30-71-1, Appikonda RH colonyll, Vadlapudi, Gajuwakal Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
4. Kundrapu Somulamma, W/o Mutyalu, Hindu, age 62 years, housewife, residing at D.No.30-7-1, Appikonda RH colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
5.Kundrapu Simhachalam W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 86 years, residing at Door No.7-5, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project office, Visakhapatnam-31.
6. Geddam Kpentamma, W/o Simhachalam, age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.5-4, Hastinapuram, H/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Ramineni Venkateswararao, S/o Basavayya, Hindu, age 45 years, business, resilding at D.No.10-32-6, Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya and Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.7 and defendants 1,3,4,6 remind exparte and suit against defendant 2 and 5 dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties at metes and bounds into seven equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and such equal shares dto thedefendants 1 to 6, and deliver separate possession ofk such share so allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 on converting the joint possession into separate possession; for profits that can be determined by way of separate application; and for costs of the suit.
PW.1 called absent No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 31st day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFF:-
P.W.1/ dt.8.12.2017 - Vennela Pydamma W/o Somulu.(Chief examination only)
FOR DEFENDANT:- NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 16-08-2012
Date of Filing:16-08-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.199/2012
Between:
Vennela Pydamma,W/o Somulu, Hindu, age 65 years, household duties, resildilng at D.No.8-4, Mettapalem village, lH/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Paraawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Eerla Sreeramulu,S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 52 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.7-56, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steet project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
2.Eerla Suryanarayana, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 50 years, cultivation, residilng at D.No.7-55, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
3.Eerla Vonumulu, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 48 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.30-71-1, Appikonda RH colonyll, Vadlapudi, Gajuwakal Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
4. Kundrapu Somulamma, W/o Mutyalu, Hindu, age 62 years, housewife, residing at D.No.30-7-1, Appikonda RH colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
5.Kundrapu Simhachalam W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 86 years, residing at Door No.7-5, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project office, Visakhapatnam-31.
6. Geddam Kpentamma, W/o Simhachalam, age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.5-4, Hastinapuram, H/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Ramineni Venkateswararao, S/o Basavayya, Hindu, age 45 years, business, resilding at D.No.10-32-6, Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
Suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties at metes and bounds into seven equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and such equal shares dto thedefendants 1 to 6, and deliver separate possession ofk such share so allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 on converting the joint possession into separate possession; for profits that can be determined by way of separate application; and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction of this court
Valuel of the plaint schedule property consisting of Ac.5.00 cents and @
Rs.15,00,000/- per acre as per basic value register Rs. 16,05,000-00
Plaintiff’s 1/7th share Rs. 10,71,428-00 3/4th value share Rs. 8,03,571-00
C.F. of Rs.10,826-00 is payable, but a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid under
Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya and Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri
A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.7 and defendants 1,3,4,6 remind exparte and suit against defendant 2 and 5 dismissed for default and this Court doth order and ;
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and theseal of this court, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.189/2017
Between: Chekuri Ramaraju S/o Venkata Raju @ Venkatarao, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, resident of D.No.1-38, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Gogula Srinivas S/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, age 49 years, resident of D.No.1- 113, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram & Sri BSVRajagopal,Advocates for plaintiff. Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit . Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery oif
Rs.6,84,333/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note
dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of
plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
I.A59 /2018 is allowed. Accordingly the matter is advanced to today from 23.02.2018.
The plaintiff is present. Plaintiff filed memo not pressing the suit as matter was settled out of court. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly suit is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:19-12-2017
Date of Filing:19-12-2017
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.189/2017
Between:
Chekuri Ramaraju S/o Venkata Raju @ Venkatarao, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, resident of D.No.1-38, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Gogula Srinivas S/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, age 49 years, resident of D.No.1- 113, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery oif
Rs.6,84,333/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note
dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of
plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is
Rs.6,84,333/- and a court fee of Rs.9,326/- is paid under Section 20 r/w Art.I(a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram & Sri B.S.V.Rajagopal, Advocates for plaintiff. Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit . Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs;
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.255/2013
Between: Panduri Satyarao S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, age 69 years, retired MPDO, Sabbavaram, N/o Venkatapuram village Munagapaka Mandal, presently, residing at D.No.14-38-1/A, Plot No.303, Viswanadh Residency, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2.
Plaintiff. And:
1. Panduri Kanaka Apparao,s/o Late Nookaiah, Hindu, age 45 years, Resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Panduri Ramalakshmi W/o Kanaka Apparao, Hindu, age 40 years, resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Chinni China Appalanaidu @ Innabbai,S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, age 69 yearls, resident of Venkatapuram village, via; Paravada, Thanam post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.V.R.Joga rao and Mr.R.Atchutharamaiah, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate of defendants. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the item No.6 of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants their men, agents servants there from; for future profits till the delivaery of the possession of item No.6 of schedule property as to be determined in a separate enquiry under order 20 R.12 of CPC; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. PW1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suilt is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW1/ Dt.9-6-2017/Panduri Satya Rao, S/o Simhachalam (chief affidavit only)
FOR DEFENDANT: NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 26-12-2013 Date of Filing: 26-12-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.255/2013
Between: Panduri Satyarao S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, age 69 years, retired MPDO, Sabbavaram, N/o Venkatapuram village Munagapaka Mandal, presently, residing at D.No.14-38-1/A, Plot No.303, Viswanadh Residency, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2. Plaintiff. And:
1. Panduri Kanaka Apparao,s/o Late Nookaiah, Hindu, age 45 years, Resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Panduri Ramalakshmi W/o Kanaka Apparao, Hindu, age 40 years, resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Chinni China Appalanaidu @ Innabbai,S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, age 69 yearls, resident of Venkatapuram village, via; Paravada, Thanam post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the item No.6 of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants their men, agents servants there from; for future profits till the delivaery of the possession of item No.6 of schedule property as to be determined in a separate enquiry under order 20 R.12 of CPC; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suilt for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is
Rs.10,000/- for relief of permanent injunction and Rs.1,20,000/- being 3/4th market value for relief of declaration and possession and CF of Rs.4,412/- is paid under Sec.26 (c) & 24(a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
Total value of item-6 property Rs. 1,60,000-00 3/4th of the Market value is Rs. 1,20,000-00
Notional value of items 1 to 5 Rs. 10,000-00
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri B.V.R.Joga rao and Mr.R.Atchutharamaiah, Advocates for plaintiff and of
Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate of defendants. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the suilt be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.221/2013
Between:
Gulla Sreeram Murthy S/o Chellanna Dora, Hindu, age 33 years, cultivation, resident of Door No.3-16, Buddibanda village H/o Kovagunta village, Vommali Jagannadhapuram post, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Konathala Radhabhai, W/o Seetharam, Hindu, age years, House wife, resident of Door No.2-95, Sampathipuram village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Central Bank of India, Main branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri Ch.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation on either side.Hence the suilt is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.05.2005 by directing thedefendant to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp paper and register the samek in respect of the plaint schedule property in favoudr of the plaintiff and to do all the acts necaessary to put the plaintiff in possession with such time as the court fixes, ilf the 1st defendant, fails to execute the regular sale deed, the court may execute the same at the costs of the plaintiffl and recover the same from thedefendant (b) for an alternative relief foir refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the 1st defendant and for costs of the suilt.
Costs not paid. PW1 called absent. No representation on either side.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIl
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of presentation:22-11-2013 Date of Filing :22-11-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.221/2013
Between: Gulla Sreeram Murthy S/o Chellanna Dora, Hindu, age 33 years, cultivation, resident of Door No.3-16, Buddibanda village H/o Kovagunta village, Vommali Jagannadhapuram post, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Konathala Radhabhai, W/o Seetharam, Hindu, age years, House wife, resident of Door No.2-95, Sampathipuram village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Central Bank of India, Main branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.05.2005 by directing thedefendant to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp paper and register the samek in respect of the plaint schedule property in favoudr of the plaintiff and to do all the acts necaessary to put the plaintiff in possession with such time as the court fixes, ilf the 1st defendant, fails to execute the regular sale deed, the court may execute the same at the costs of the plaintiffl and recover the same from thedefendant (b) for an alternative relief foir refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the 1st defendant and for costs of the suilt.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is
Rs.4,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.6,426/- is paid under Sec.39 of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri
Ch.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation on either side. Hence the suilt is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of Plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 20-10-2014 Date of Filing:20-04-2014
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.263/2014
Between: Penmetsa Vishnukumar Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju, age 53 years, residing at Plot No.A-19, D.No.50-104-1/9, Seeethammadhara N.E.Layout, Visakhapatnam-13. Plaintiff. And:
1.Karri Bangarunaidu S/o Ramunaidu, age 52 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Karri Ramprasad S/o Ramunaidu, age 44 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
Suit filed by the plaintilff against the defendants(a) to pass a decree to directilng the defendants to execute the register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaintk kschedule property interms of the agreement of sale executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff within time fixed by the court (b) in case if the defendants fail to execute and register a sale deed, the court may itself execute and register a sale deed for aand on behalf of the defendants in respect of theplailant schedule at the expenses of the plaintiff
(c) to put the plaiantiff’s in possessilon of the plailnt schedule after evicting the defendants therefrom (d) alternatively, if the court feels that for any reason, the relief of specific performance could not be awarded, directing the defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,24,160/- paid by the plaintiff under the agreement of sale dtogether with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the agreement of sale till date of full land final reliazation and for costs of the suilt.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is valued at
Rs.5,24,160-00 and a court fee of Rs.7726/- is being paid under Sec.39, r/w
Sch.I Art.I (b) & (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi and Sri V.Viswanadham,Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri
M.Srinivasarao and M.V.R.Bhupathirao, Advocates for 1st defendant and of Sri
S.P.Naidu and R.Appalanaidu, Advocates for 2nd defendant . Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit claim. Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 01st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.263/2014
Between: Penmetsa Vishnukumar Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju, age 53 years,residing at Plot No.A-19, D.No.50-104-1/9, Seeethammadhara N.E.Layout, Visakhapatnam-13. Plaintiff. And:
1.Karri Bangarunaidu S/o Ramunaidu, age 52 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2.Karri Ramprasad S/o Ramunaidu, age 44 years, residing at Asakapalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi and Sri V.Viswanadham,Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri M.Srinivasarao and M.V.R.Bhupathirao, Advocates for 1st defendant and of Sri S.P.Naidu and R.Appalanaidu, Advocates for 2nd defendant . Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit claim. Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintilff against the defendants(a) to pass a decree to directilng the defendants to execute the register a sale deed iln favour of the plailntiff in respect of the plaintk kschedule property ilnterms of the agreement of sale executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff withiln time fixed by the court (b) in case if the defendants fail to execute and register a sale deed, the court may itself execute and register a sale deed for aand on behalf of the defendants in respect of theplailant schedule at the expenses of the plaintiff (c) to put the plaiantiff’s in possessilon of the plailnt schedule after evicting the defendants therefrom (d) alternatively, if the court feels that for any reason, the relief of specific performance could not be awarded, directing the defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,24,160/- paid by the plaintiff under the agreement of sale dtogether with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of the agreement of sale till date of full land final reliazattion and for costs of the suilt.
Plaintiff filed a memo not press the suit claim as matter was settled out of court. Hence memo is recorded the suilt is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.199/2012
Between: Vennela Pydamma,W/o Somulu, Hindu, age 65 years, household duties, resildilng at D.No.8-4, Mettapalem village, lH/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Paraawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Eerla Sreeramulu,S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 52 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.7-56,Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steet project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
2.Eerla Suryanarayana, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 50 years, cultivation, residilng at D.No.7-55, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
3.Eerla Vonumulu, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 48 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.30-71-1, Appikonda RH colonyll, Vadlapudi, Gajuwakal Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
4. Kundrapu Somulamma, W/o Mutyalu, Hindu, age 62 years, housewife, residing at D.No.30-7-1, Appikonda RH colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
5.Kundrapu Simhachalam W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 86 years, residing at Door No.7-5, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project office, Visakhapatnam-31.
6. Geddam Kpentamma, W/o Simhachalam, age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.5-4, Hastinapuram, H/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Ramineni Venkateswararao, S/o Basavayya, Hindu, age 45 years, business, resilding at D.No.10-32-6, Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya and Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.7 and defendants 1,3,4,6 remind exparte and suit against defendant 2 and 5 dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties at metes and bounds into seven equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and such equal shares dto thedefendants 1 to 6, and deliver separate possession ofk such share so allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 on converting the joint possession into separate possession; for profits that can be determined by way of separate application; and for costs of the suit.
PW.1 called absent No representation. Hence the matter is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 31st day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFF:-
P.W.1/ dt.8.12.2017 - Vennela Pydamma W/o Somulu.(Chief examination only)
FOR DEFENDANT:- NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 16-08-2012
Date of Filing:16-08-2012
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Wednesday, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.199/2012
Between: Vennela Pydamma,W/o Somulu, Hindu, age 65 years, household duties, resildilng at D.No.8-4, Mettapalem village, lH/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Paraawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Eerla Sreeramulu,S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 52 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.7-56, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steet project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
2.Eerla Suryanarayana, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 50 years, cultivation, residilng at D.No.7-55, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project Office, Visakhapatnam-31.
3.Eerla Vonumulu, S/o Musalayya, Hindu, age 48 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.30-71-1, Appikonda RH colonyll, Vadlapudi, Gajuwakal Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
4. Kundrapu Somulamma, W/o Mutyalu, Hindu, age 62 years, housewife, residing at D.No.30-7-1, Appikonda RH colony, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam-46.
5.Kundrapu Simhachalam W/o Appalanaidu, Hindu, age 86 years, residing at Door No.7-5, Sriram Nagar, T.Devada, Steel project office, Visakhapatnam-31.
6. Geddam Kpentamma, W/o Simhachalam, age 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, D.No.5-4, Hastinapuram, H/o Vada Cheepurupalli, Parawada mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Ramineni Venkateswararao, S/o Basavayya, Hindu, age 45 years, business, resilding at D.No.10-32-6, Visalakshmi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
Suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties at metes and bounds into seven equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and such equal shares dto thedefendants 1 to 6, and deliver separate possession ofk such share so allotted to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 on converting the joint possession into separate possession; for profits that can be determined by way of separate application; and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction of this court
Valuel of the plaint schedule property consisting of Ac.5.00 cents and @
Rs.15,00,000/- per acre as per basic value register Rs. 16,05,000-00
Plaintiff’s 1/7th share Rs. 10,71,428-00 3/4th value share Rs. 8,03,571-00
C.F. of Rs.10,826-00 is payable, but a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid under
Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya and Sri M.Srinivasarao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri
A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendant No.7 and defendants 1,3,4,6 remind exparte and suit against defendant 2 and 5 dismissed for default and this Court doth order and ;
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs;
Given under my hand and theseal of this court, this the 31st day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.189/2017
Between: Chekuri Ramaraju S/o Venkata Raju @ Venkatarao, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, resident of D.No.1-38, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Gogula Srinivas S/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, age 49 years, resident of D.No.1- 113, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram & Sri BSVRajagopal,Advocates for plaintiff. Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit . Memo is recorded and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery oif
Rs.6,84,333/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note
dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of
plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
I.A59 /2018 is allowed. Accordingly the matter is advanced to today from 23.02.2018.
The plaintiff is present. Plaintiff filed memo not pressing the suit as matter was settled out of court. Heard. Memo is recorded. Accordingly suit is dismissed without costs as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in open court, this lthe 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:19-12-2017
Date of Filing:19-12-2017
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Friday, this the 23rd day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.189/2017
Between: Chekuri Ramaraju S/o Venkata Raju @ Venkatarao, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, resident of D.No.1-38, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Gogula Srinivas S/o Narayana Murthy, Hindu, age 49 years, resident of D.No.1- 113, Melupaka village and post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery oif
Rs.6,84,333/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note
dated 05.06.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of
plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is
Rs.6,84,333/- and a court fee of Rs.9,326/- is paid under Section 20 r/w Art.I(a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram & Sri B.S.V.Rajagopal, Advocates for plaintiff. Plaintiff filed memo not press the suit . Memo is recorded and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs;
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 1st day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.255/2013
Between: Panduri Satyarao S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, age 69 years, retired MPDO, Sabbavaram, N/o Venkatapuram village Munagapaka Mandal, presently, residing at D.No.14-38-1/A, Plot No.303, Viswanadh Residency, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2. Plaintiff. And:
1. Panduri Kanaka Apparao,s/o Late Nookaiah, Hindu, age 45 years, Resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Panduri Ramalakshmi W/o Kanaka Apparao, Hindu, age 40 years, resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Chinni China Appalanaidu @ Innabbai,S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, age 69 yearls, resident of Venkatapuram village, via; Paravada, Thanam post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.V.R.Joga rao and Mr.R.Atchutharamaiah, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate of defendants. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the item No.6 of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants their men, agents servants there from; for future profits till the delivaery of the possession of item No.6 of schedule property as to be determined in a separate enquiry under order 20 R.12 of CPC; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. PW1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suilt is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW1/ Dt.9-6-2017/Panduri Satya Rao, S/o Simhachalam (chief affidavit only)
FOR DEFENDANT: NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation: 26-12-2013 Date of Filing: 26-12-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Thursday, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
O.S.No.255/2013
Between: Panduri Satyarao S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, age 69 years, retired MPDO, Sabbavaram, N/o Venkatapuram village Munagapaka Mandal, presently, residing at D.No.14-38-1/A, Plot No.303, Viswanadh Residency, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2. Plaintiff. And:
1. Panduri Kanaka Apparao,s/o Late Nookaiah, Hindu, age 45 years, Resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Panduri Ramalakshmi W/o Kanaka Apparao, Hindu, age 40 years, resident of Venkatapuram village, Via: Paravada, Thanam Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Chinni China Appalanaidu @ Innabbai,S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, age 69 yearls, resident of Venkatapuram village, via; Paravada, Thanam post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants.
This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No.6 of plaint schedule property, and for recovery of possession of the item No.6 of plaint schedule property after evicting the defendants their men, agents servants there from; for future profits till the delivaery of the possession of item No.6 of schedule property as to be determined in a separate enquiry under order 20 R.12 of CPC; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents, servants, and representatives from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suilt for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is
Rs.10,000/- for relief of permanent injunction and Rs.1,20,000/- being 3/4th market value for relief of declaration and possession and CF of Rs.4,412/- is paid under Sec.26 (c) & 24(a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
Total value of item-6 property Rs. 1,60,000-00 3/4th of the Market value is Rs. 1,20,000-00
Notional value of items 1 to 5 Rs. 10,000-00
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri B.V.R.Joga rao and Mr.R.Atchutharamaiah, Advocates for plaintiff and of
Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate of defendants. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and :
DECREE
1) that the suilt be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of February, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.221/2013
Between: Gulla Sreeram Murthy S/o Chellanna Dora, Hindu, age 33 years, cultivation, resident of Door No.3-16, Buddibanda village H/o Kovagunta village, Vommali Jagannadhapuram post, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Konathala Radhabhai, W/o Seetharam, Hindu, age years, House wife, resident of Door No.2-95, Sampathipuram village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Central Bank of India, Main branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri
Ch.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation on either side.Hence the suilt is dismissed for default and this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.05.2005 by directing thedefendant to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp paper and register the samek in respect of the plaint schedule property in favoudr of the plaintiff and to do all the acts necaessary to put the plaintiff in possession with such time as the court fixes, ilf the 1st defendant, fails to execute the regular sale deed, the court may execute the same at the costs of the plaintiffl and recover the same from thedefendant (b) for an alternative relief foir refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the 1st defendant and for costs of the suilt.
Costs not paid. PW1 called absent. No representation on either side.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIl
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of presentation:22-11-2013 Date of Filing :22-11-2013
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri S.Srinivasa Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
O.S.No.221/2013
Between: Gulla Sreeram Murthy S/o Chellanna Dora, Hindu, age 33 years, cultivation, resident of Door No.3-16, Buddibanda village H/o Kovagunta village, Vommali Jagannadhapuram post, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
1.Konathala Radhabhai, W/o Seetharam, Hindu, age years, House wife, resident of Door No.2-95, Sampathipuram village, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Central Bank of India, Main branch, Visakhapatnam represented by its Chief Manager, Visakhapatnam.
Defendants.
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.05.2005 by directing thedefendant to execute a regular sale deed on a proper stamp paper and register the samek in respect of the plaint schedule property in favoudr of the plaintiff and to do all the acts necaessary to put the plaintiff in possession with such time as the court fixes, ilf the 1st defendant, fails to execute the regular sale deed, the court may execute the same at the costs of the plaintiffl and recover the same from thedefendant (b) for an alternative relief foir refund of the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the 1st defendant and for costs of the suilt.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is
Rs.4,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.6,426/- is paid under Sec.39 of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri
Ch.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 remained exparte. Costs not paid. PW.1 called absent No representation on either side. Hence the suilt is dismissed for default and this Court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no order as to costs; ( Copy of Plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 23rd day of January, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANTS;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Friday, this the 2th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.1062016
Between:
Sri Bharnikana Ramana Babu.
Plaintiff.
And:
Sri Karanam Naidu and 8 others.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Sri V.Venkata Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and
of Sri M.Jayaram and B.S.V. Rajagopal, Advocates for the defendants
and having stood over till this day this court settle the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for specific
performance of contract or
for alternative relief?
2) Whether the defendants are trying to alienate the plaint schedule
properties to
3rd parties?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 19-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 2nd day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Thursday, this the 8th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.131/2016
Between: Sri Molleti Bhuvaneswara Ramana Murthy
Plaintiff. And: Smt Genji Mahalaxmi, W/o late Sanyasinaidu and another.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri Lanka Jagannadham, Lanka Parvaateeswar and K.R.Ramaesh babu, Advocates for the Plaintiff and of SriP.Hara Srinivasa Rao,Advocate for the defendants and having stood over till this day this court settle the following: ISSUES
1) Whether the suit promissory note is a fabricated and created one and not supported by consideration?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for the suit amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 23-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Thursday, this the 8th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.141/2016
Between:
Sri G.V.Nageswararao S/o Venkata Rao
Plaintiff.
And:
Sri Palaparthi Apparao S/o Kondayya.
Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Sri Ch.V.Krishna, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of
Sri C.Sivaiah,Advocate for the defendant and having stood over till
this day this court settle the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the suit promissory note is a fabricated and rank forged
one and the
same is not supported by consideration as contended by
defendant?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for the suit amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 23-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 8th day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Wednesday, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.178/2016
Between:
Sri Katari Demudu S/o late Adeyya.
Plaintiff.
And:
Sri Chenna Parvathi @ Pujaramma W/o Appalakonda and 6 others.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Sri Lanka Jagannadham, Lanka Parvaateeswar
and K.R.Ramaesh babu, Advocates for the Plaintiff and of
SriP.V.Patnaik,Advocate for the defendants and having stood over till
this day this court settle the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the suit promissory note is a rank forged one as
contended by the defendants?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for the suit amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 23-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Friday, this the 2nd day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.156/2016
Between:
Smt. Gunisetti Lakshmi W/o Srinivas.
Plaintiff.
And:
Smt.Senapathi Lakshmi W/o late Satyam and 3 others
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Sri Vaddadi Venkata Rao, Advocate for the
Plaintiff and of Sri M.Jayaram,Advocate for the defendants 1 and 2 .
Defendants 3 remained exparte and having stood over till this day
this court settle the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is usurious as
contended
by the defendants?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for preliminary decree for the suit
amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 16-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 2nd day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Thursday, this the 8th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.104/2016
Between:
Smt. Uppada Uma Santhi Kumari W/o Ramachandrarao and another.
Plaintiffs.
And:
Sri Gundapu Ganapathirao S/o Jaggarao and another.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Sri Lanka Jagannadham, Lanka Parvaateeswar
and K.R.Ramaesh babu, Advocates for the Plaintiff and of SriS.Ram
Babu, Advocate for the defendants and having stood over till this
day this court settle the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the suit promissory note is a fabricated and rank forged
one and the
same is not supported by consideration as contended by
defendant?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for the suit amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 23-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 8th day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Wednesday, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.113/2016
Between:
Sri Madem Venkata Ramana S/o late Bangarayya.
Plaintiff.
And:
Sri Singampali Rama Rao,S/o late Appanna.
Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Sri K.P.Naidu, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri
S.P.Naidu,Advocate for the defendant and having stood over till this
day this court settle the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the suit promissory note is a fabricated and created one
as contended
by defendants?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for the suit amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 23-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Thursday, this the 8th day of June,
2017.
O.S.No.116/2016
Between:
State Bank of India, Munagapaka Branch, Munagapaka.
Plaintiff.
And:
M/s Laxmiprasanth Digital Studios and Vedeos, Munagapaaka and 2
others.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi, Sri V.Viswaanadham,
Advocates for the Plaintiff and of Sri Y.Jagaish, Advocate for the
defendants and having stood over till this day this court settle the
following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the defendants are small farmers and they are entitled
to get relief
under debt relief Acts?
2) Whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is usurious?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for preliminary decree for the suit
amount?
4) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 23-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 8th day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Monday, this the 8th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.229/2015
Between:
Sri Malla Madhavarao S/o Narasimhamurthy.
Plaintiff.
And:
Smt.Doppalapudi Manjula W/o Busayya and another.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Sri M.Jayaram, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of
Sri Y.Sairam, Advocate for the defendants and having stood over till
this day this court settle the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, supported by
consideration and the same is binding on the defendants or not?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for the suit amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 21-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 5th day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Monday, this the 5th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.117/2016
Between:
Smt. Tainana Parvathamma W/o Sannibabu.
Plaintiffs.
And:
Smt. Gorle Ramanamma W/o late Satyanarayana.
Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Sri Lanka Jagannadham, Lanka Parvaateeswar
and K.R.Ramaesh babu, Advocates for the Plaintiff and of
SriP.A.Narasimham, Advocate for the defendants and having stood
over till this day this court settle the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the suit promissory note is true valid and the same is
binding
on the defendant or not?
2) Whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is penal and
usurious?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for the suit amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 21-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 5th day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Friday, this the 2th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.112/2016
Between:
State Bank of India, Sabbavaram, represented by its Branch
Manager, Sabbavaram.
Plaintiff.
And:
Sri Rama Poultry Feeds Thavvanipalem and 3 others.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Smt A.Bhanumathi and Sri V.Viswanadham,
Advocates for the Plaintiff and of Sri S.P.Naidu, Advocate for the
defendants and having stood over till this day this court settle the
following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is penal and
excessive as contended
by the defendant?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for decree for the suit amount?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 16-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 2nd day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
Thursday, this the 1st day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.249/2015
Between:
State Bank of India, Anakapalle Branch, represented by its Chief
Manager,Anakapalle.
Plaintiff.
And:
Kum.Vajragottu Lavanya and 3 others.
Defendants.
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me
in the presence of Smt. A.Bhanumathi, Sri V.Viswanadham,
Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri K.P.V.Ramanaiah, Advocate for
defendants and having stood over till this day this court settle the
following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the Education loan is entitle to interest waiver, as such
the suit amount
is excessive and penal in nature?
2) Whether the defendants are trying to alienate the plaint schedule
properties to
III rd parties?
3) To what relief?
List of witnesses and documents within 15 days .
For trial 16-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 1st day of
June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
+ O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
Date of presentation:06-09-2007 Date of Filing:28-09-2007 06-09-2007IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Tuesday this the 20th of June, 2017.
CMA.No.01/2007
Between: Sri Villuri Ramu, son of late Mahalakshmi Naidu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Dr.No.15-22-6/1, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Appellant. And:
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2) The Collector under Section-47-A of Indian stamp Act and District Registrar of Assurances, Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam.
3) The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalle.
Respondents
Petition filed under section 47-A (4 & 5) of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule-9 of A.P.Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975 by the Petitioner/Appellant against the respondent District Registrar of Assurance Registration and stamps Visakhapatnam to set aside the proceedings No.595/G2/07,dt.27-06-2007 by allowing this Appeal with costs.
A fixed Court fee of Rs.5/- is paid under Section47-A of Indian Stamp Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya,
Sri M.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for Appellant and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for Defendants. Counsel for appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the Civil Miscellaneous petition and having stood over till this day this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 20th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For APPELLANT FOR RESPONDENTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Tuesday this the 20th of June, 2017.
CMA.No.01/2007
Between: Sri Villuri Ramu, son of late Mahalakshmi Naidu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Dr.No.15-22-6/1, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Appellant. And:
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2) The Collector under Section-47-A of Indian stamp Act and District Registrar of Assurances, Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam.
3) The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalle.
Respondents
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya,
Sri M.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for Appellant and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for Defendants. Counsel for appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the Civil Miscellaneous petition and having stood over till this day this court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under section 47-A (4 & 5) of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule-9 of A.P.Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975 by the Petitioner/Appellant against the respondent District Registrar of Assurance Registration and stamps Visakhapatnam to set aside the proceedings No.595/G2/07,dt.27-06-2007 by allowing this Appeal with costs.
Counsel for Appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the CMA. Memo is recorded.
Hence this CMA is dismissed without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) Andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence though granted several adjournments . Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015
Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for
Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli
Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016
Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between:
Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence though granted several adjournments . Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016
Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for
Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP + O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
Date of presentation:06-09-2007 Date of Filing:28-09-2007 06-09-2007IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Tuesday this the 20th of June, 2017.
CMA.No.01/2007
Between: Sri Villuri Ramu, son of late Mahalakshmi Naidu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Dr.No.15-22-6/1, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Appellant. And:
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2) The Collector under Section-47-A of Indian stamp Act and District Registrar of Assurances, Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam.
3) The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalle.
Respondents
Petition filed under section 47-A (4 & 5) of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule-9 of A.P.Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975 by the Petitioner/Appellant against the respondent District Registrar of Assurance Registration and stamps Visakhapatnam to set aside the proceedings No.595/G2/07,dt.27-06-2007 by allowing this Appeal with costs.
A fixed Court fee of Rs.5/- is paid under Section47-A of Indian Stamp Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya,
Sri M.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for Appellant and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for Defendants. Counsel for appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the Civil Miscellaneous petition and having stood over till this day this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 20th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For APPELLANT FOR RESPONDENTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Tuesday this the 20th of June, 2017.
CMA.No.01/2007
Between: Sri Villuri Ramu, son of late Mahalakshmi Naidu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Dr.No.15-22-6/1, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Appellant. And:
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2) The Collector under Section-47-A of Indian stamp Act and District Registrar of Assurances, Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam.
3) The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalle.
Respondents
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya,
Sri M.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for Appellant and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for Defendants. Counsel for appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the Civil Miscellaneous petition and having stood over till this day this court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under section 47-A (4 & 5) of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule-9 of A.P.Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975 by the Petitioner/Appellant against the respondent District Registrar of Assurance Registration and stamps Visakhapatnam to set aside the proceedings No.595/G2/07,dt.27-06-2007 by allowing this Appeal with costs.
Counsel for Appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the CMA. Memo is recorded.
Hence this CMA is dismissed without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) Andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence though granted several adjournments . Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence though granted several adjournments . Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016
Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.229/2015
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli.
O.S.No.
Between:
Plaintiff
And:
Defendant
This suit coming on this day for settlement of issues before me in the presence of Sri and of Sri and having stood over this day this court settled the following:
ISSUES
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
Date of presentation:06-09-2007 Date of Filing:28-09-2007 06-09-2007IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Tuesday this the 20th of June, 2017.
CMA.No.01/2007
Between: Sri Villuri Ramu, son of late Mahalakshmi Naidu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Dr.No.15-22-6/1, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Appellant. And:
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2) The Collector under Section-47-A of Indian stamp Act and District Registrar of Assurances, Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam.
3) The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalle.
Respondents
Petition filed under section 47-A (4 & 5) of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule-9 of A.P.Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975 by the Petitioner/Appellant against the respondent District Registrar of Assurance Registration and stamps Visakhapatnam to set aside the proceedings No.595/G2/07,dt.27-06-2007 by allowing this Appeal with costs.
A fixed Court fee of Rs.5/- is paid under Section47-A of Indian Stamp Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya,
Sri M.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for Appellant and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for Defendants. Counsel for appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the Civil Miscellaneous petition and having stood over till this day this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 20th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For APPELLANT FOR RESPONDENTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Tuesday this the 20th of June, 2017.
CMA.No.01/2007
Between: Sri Villuri Ramu, son of late Mahalakshmi Naidu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Dr.No.15-22-6/1, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Appellant. And:
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2) The Collector under Section-47-A of Indian stamp Act and District Registrar of Assurances, Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam.
3) The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalle.
Respondents
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya,
Sri M.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for Appellant and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for Defendants. Counsel for appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the Civil Miscellaneous petition and having stood over till this day this court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under section 47-A (4 & 5) of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule-9 of A.P.Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975 by the Petitioner/Appellant against the respondent District Registrar of Assurance Registration and stamps Visakhapatnam to set aside the proceedings No.595/G2/07,dt.27-06-2007 by allowing this Appeal with costs.
Counsel for Appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the CMA. Memo is recorded.
Hence this CMA is dismissed without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) Andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence though granted several adjournments . Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016
Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74,
Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between:
Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence though granted several adjournments . Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP Date of presentation:06-09-2007 Date of Filing:28-09-2007 06-09-2007IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Tuesday this the 20th of June, 2017.
CMA.No.01/2007
Between: Sri Villuri Ramu, son of late Mahalakshmi Naidu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Dr.No.15-22-6/1, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Appellant. And:
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2) The Collector under Section-47-A of Indian stamp Act and District Registrar ofAssurances, Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam.
3) The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalle.
Respondents
Petition filed under section 47-A (4 & 5) of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule-9 of A.P.Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975 by the Petitioner/Appellant against the respondent District Registrar of Assurance Registration and stamps Visakhapatnam to set aside the proceedings No.595/G2/07,dt.27-06-2007 by allowing this Appeal with costs.
A fixed Court fee of Rs.5/- is paid under Section47-A of Indian Stamp Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya,
Sri M.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for Appellant and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for Defendants. Counsel for appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the Civil Miscellaneous petition and having stood over till this day this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed;
2) that there be no costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 20th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For APPELLANT FOR RESPONDENTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Tuesday this the 20th of June, 2017.
CMA.No.01/2007
Between: Sri Villuri Ramu, son of late Mahalakshmi Naidu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Dr.No.15-22-6/1, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Appellant.
And:
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2) The Collector under Section-47-A of Indian stamp Act and District Registrar ofAssurances, Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam.
3) The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar office, Anakapalle.
Respondents
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Jogayya,
Sri M.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocates for Appellant and of Sri Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for Defendants. Counsel for appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the Civil Miscellaneous petition and having stood over till this day this court delivered the following:
ORDER
Petition filed under section 47-A (4 & 5) of Indian Stamp Act read with Rule-9 of A.P.Stamp (Prevention of under valuation of instruments) Rules, 1975 by the Petitioner/Appellant against the respondent District Registrar of Assurance Registration and stamps Visakhapatnam to set aside the proceedings No.595/G2/07,dt.27-06-2007 by allowing this Appeal with costs.
Counsel for Appellants filed memo stating that not pressing the CMA. Memo is recorded.
Hence this CMA is dismissed without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4.
Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: FOR
Defendants
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4.
Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) Andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence though granted several adjournments . Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPAL
LI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli
Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence though granted several adjournments . Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:12-09-12012 Date of Filing:12-09-2012
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Monday this the 19th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.223/2012
Between: Sri Pilli Manikumar,S/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 45 years, cultivation, residing at Door No.40-56- 16, Sanjeeviah colony, Near Logos Church, Tadichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam-4. Plaintiff. And:
1) Pilli Chellayyamma,W/o late Somulu, Hindu, age 67 years, house hold duties, residing at Pidiwada Agraharam Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Ravada Saraswathi W/o late Appanna, Hindu, age 49 years, house hold duties, residing at Pydiwada Agraharam, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3) Kannapalli Laxmi, W/o Ramulu, Hindu, age 46 years, household duties, residing at Ammulapalem villagae, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4) andukuri Narasinga Rao, S/o late Apparao, Hindu, age 71 years, cultivation, D.No.8-7-10, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants
Suit for Preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such equal separated share to the plaintiff after converting the joint possession into separate possession and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.653063/- and a court fee of Rs.9026/- is payable but the schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendants a fixed court fee of Rs.200-00 is paid under Sec.34(2) of A.P.C.F. and
S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri
B.V.S.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for Defendant
No.4. Defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default
2) that there be no costs:
( Copy of Plaint schedule and valuation slip hereto enclosed)
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between:
Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant . Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:21-12-2015 Date of Filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli, Wednesday this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between: Sri Karri Bhasakara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10- 63, Nagulapalli villagae, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And: Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Suribabu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36 Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I ArtI(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Buddha
Thrinadha Rao Advocate for Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and this court doth order:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Give under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation:31-08-2016 Date of Filing:15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between: Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner/Plaintiff And: 1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendants.
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt.
11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Re1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Tuesday, this the 16th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No 165/2016
Between:
Sri Konatala Koteswara Rao, Late Ramu Naidu, Hindu, age 46 years, cultivation, resident at D.No.7-85, Munagapaka village, post and Mandal, near Sri Rama temple, Mandabayalu, Visakhapatnam . Plaintiff. And:
Sri Kandregula Nookaraju, S/o Sanyasi Naid, Hindu, age 47 years, cultivation resident at D.No.3-31, Vandrapalli village, post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.S.Chalam, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Lanka Jagannadham,Advocate for defendant and Counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that the subject matter was settled out of court and having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for a preliminary decree directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.10,03,333/- together with interest at the rate of Rs.24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization within the time stipulated by the court (b) if the defendant failed to pay the suit amount within the stipulated time, to pass a final decree ordering sale of the mortgaged property land for approaching such sale proceeds to the decretal amount (c) in the event, if the sale proceeds, are not balancing the decretal amount, permission may be granted to the plaintiff to sue the defendant personally and for costs of the suit.
Plaintiff and defendant present. Plaintiff filed memo stating that the subject matter of this suit was settled out of court and defendant paid entire mortgage debt and plaintiff prays the court may be pleased to dismiss the suit without costs. Memo is recorded. Hence this suit is dismissed without costs as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 16th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation : 24-10-2016 Date of filing:24-10-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Tuesday, this the 16th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No 165/2016
Between:
Sri Konatala Koteswara Rao, Late Ramu Naidu, Hindu, age 46 years, cultivation, resident at D.No.7-85, Munagapaka village, post and Mandal, near Sri Rama temple, Mandabayalu, Visakhapatnam . Plaintiff. And:
Sri Kandregula Nookaraju, S/o Sanyasi Naidul, Hindu, age 47 years, cultivation,resident at D.No.3-31, Vandrapalli village, post, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant. Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) for a preliminary decree directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.10,03,333/- together with interest at the rate of Rs.24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization within the time stipulated by the court (b) if the defendant failed to pay the suit amount within the stipulated time, to pass a final decree ordering sale of the mortgaged property land for approaching such sale proceeds to the decretal amount (c) in the event, if the sale proceeds, are not balancing the decretal amount, permission may be granted to the plaintiff to sue the defendant personally and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is
Rs.10,03,333-00 a court fee of Rs.12,626/- is paid under Sec.31(1) and Sec.20 of Sch.I Art.I (b) and(c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri S.S.Chalam, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Lanka Jagannadham, Advocate for defendant and Counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that the subject matter was settled out of court and having stood over till this day for consideration this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as settled out of court;
2) that there be no costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 16th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Tuesday, this the 16th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No 188/2014
Between:
State Bank of India,Anakapalli branch represented by its Chief Manager Sri A. Sai Prasad S/o Balaramaiah, age 50 years,Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff.
And:
Sri Patoju Vseerabhadra Rao S/o late Vioshnu Murthy, age 56 years, residing at H.No.1-23, Tuypuram village Butchayyapeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.A.Bhanumathi, Sri V.Viswanadham, Advocates for the Plaintiff Bank and of Sri M.Jaya Ram,Advocate for defendant. Costs not paid. Steps against deceased defendant not taken No representation on behalf of plaintiff and having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff bank (herein after to be referred as plaintiff) against the defendant for recover of an amount of Rs.3,26,147/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty six thousand one hundred and forty seven only) along with subsequent interest thereon at 13.40% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of the ksuiltk till date of realization and for costs of the suit.
Costs not paid. Steps against deceased defendant not taken. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit defendant ils dismissed without costs as abated.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 16th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
For Plaintiff:
PW1:16-12-2015: Sri P.Satya SaiSubrahmanyaraju
List of documents marked for Plaintiff:-
Ex.A1 is the Bio-data form.
Ex.A2 is the letter of arrangement issued by the plaintiff and acknowledged the defendant.
Ex.A3 is the agreement of loan cum hypothecation executed by defendant.
Ex.A4 is the letter by the defendant addressed by the plaintiff.
Ex.A5 is the notice to the defendant by Lok Adalat, Anakapalli in
PLC.N;o.1171/13.
Ex.A6 is the certified extract of statement of loan.
For Defendant:- NIL
PSCJ/AKP Date of Presentation : 04-07-2014 Date of filing:30-07-2014
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Tuesday, this the 16th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No 188/2014
Between:
State Bank of India,Anakapalli branch represented by its Chief Manager Sri A. Sai Prasad S/o Balaramaiah, age 50 years,Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District.
Plaintiff. And:
Sri Patoju Vseerabhadra Rao S/o late Vioshnu Murthy, age 56 years, residing at H.No.1-23, Tuypuram village Butchayyapeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
Suit filed by the plaintiff bank (herein after to be referred as plaintiff) against the defendant for recover of an amount of Rs.3,26,147/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty six thousand one hundred and forty seven only) along with subsequent interest thereon at 13.40% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of the suilt till date of realization and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is valued at
Rs.3,26,147/- and a court fee of Rs.5,726/- is paid thereon under Sec.20 read with Art.I(b) and (c) of schedule I of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Smt.A.Bhanumathi, Sri V.Viswanadham, Advocates for the Plaintiff Bank and of Sri M.Jaya Ram,Advocate for defendant. Costs not paid. Steps against deceased defendant not taken No representation on behalf of plaintiff and having stood over till this day for consideration this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as no representation on behalf of plaintiff;
2) that the suit against defendant is dismissed without costs as abated;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 16th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Tuesday, this the 13th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.43/2016
Between:
Sri Kanchumarthy Ravi Kanth, son of Mohana Rao, Hindu, age 47 years, working as Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Sonthyam, Visakhapatnam, residing at Flat S-1, Premier paradise No.3, Official colony, 3rd lane, Maharanipeta,Visakhapatnam . Plaintiff. And:
Smt.Kanchumarthy Bharathi Devi, daughter of Yarasani Suri Babu, Hindu, age 46 years, working as Teacher (In charge/Pre Premier), D.A.V Public School, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District, residing at Flat No.T-1, Sri Sai Ganesh Villa, Near Commercial Tax office, New colony, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri I.M.Ahmed, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri K.Sunil Reddy,Advocate for defendant and Counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that the subject matter was settled out of court and having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) to direct the defendant to vacate the schedule premises and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff in good condition as is given to the defendant and direct the defendant to pay Rs.4,32,000/- towards arrears of rent from February,2013 to
February,2016 with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization and to direct the defendant to pay monthly rents at 12,000/- from March,2016 till delivery of the same to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.
Counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that the subject matter of this suit was settled out of court and hence the plaintiff not pressing the suit and prays the court may be pleased to dismiss the suit. Memo is recorded. Hence this suit dismissed without costs as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation : 28-3-2016 Date of filing:29-03-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Anakapalli
Tuesday, this the 13th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.43/2016
Between:
Sri Kanchumarthy Ravi Kanth, son of Mohana Rao, Hindu, age 47 years, working as Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Sonthyam, Visakhapatnam, residing at Flat S-1, Premier paradise No.3, Official colony, 3rd lane, Maharanipeta,Visakhapatnam . Plaintiff. And:
Smt.Kanchumarthy Bharathi Devi, daughter of Yarasani Suri Babu, Hindu, age 46 years, working as Teacher (In charge/Pre Premier), D.A.V Public School, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District, residing at Flat No.T-1, Sri Sai Ganesh Villa, Near Commercial Tax office, New colony, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.
Defendant.
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant (a) to direct the defendant to vacate the schedule premises and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff in good condition as is given to the defendant and direct the defendant to pay Rs.4,32,000/- towards arrears of rent from February,2013 to February,2016 with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization and to direct the defendant to pay monthly rents at 12,000/- from March,2016 till delivery of the same to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is as follows: For eviction the suit is valued on one year rent i.e. Rs.12,000/-x12= Rs.1,44,000/- and a court fee of Rs.3,926/- is paid .For recovery of arrears of rents the suit is valued at Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.12,000/-X36) and a court fee of Rs.6,826/- is paid U/Sec.40 and 20 Art.I(b&c) of APCF and S.V.Act.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri I.M.Ahmed, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri K.Sunil Reddy, Advocate for defendant and Counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that the subject matter was settled out of court and having stood over till this day for consideration this court doth order and;
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as settled out of court;
2) that there be no costs; ( Copy of plaint schedule hereto enclosed)
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 13th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli
Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between:
Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
Respondents/defendan ts.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri
M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court delivered the following:
ORDER
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt. 11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
Counter of R1 and R2 not filed. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court. Memo is recorded. Hence this petition is dismissed without costs as not pressed as settled out of court.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 8th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation : 31-08-2016 Date of Filing : 15-09-2016
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli Thursday, this the 8th day of June,2017.
I.A.343/2016 in O.S.225/2012
Between:
Mummina Sreenu S/o GangaRaju, Hindu 41 years, residing at D.No.2-74, Bavuluvada village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
……..Petitioner/Plaintiff
And:
1.Molli Apparao son of late Appalakonda, Hindu age 41 years, residing at House No.2, RV Palem Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal.
2. Molli Ramu S/o late Appalakonda, age 38 years, residing at D.No.1-43 Rongalivanipalem,Kunchangi, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakha Dist.
3. Molli Talupulu S/o late Appalakonda, Hindu age 36 years rest do.
…….Respondents/defendan ts
This petition filed under order 34 Rule 5 and Sec.151 of CPC.
The petitioner/plaintiff prays to order to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dt. 11-02-2016 for recovery of mortgage money for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.
A fixed Court fee of Rs.1/- is affixed on the petition.
This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nageswararao, Advocate for Petitioner/plaintiff and of Sri
M.J.V.N.Kumar, Advocate for Respondents/defendants. Counsel for petitioner filed memo not pressing the petition as settled out of court and this court doth order and;
DECREETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed as settled out of Court.
2) that there be no costs; Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 8th day of June,2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
No costs memo is filed on either side. PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalli
Wednesday, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between:
Sri Karri Bhaskara Rao,S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10-63, Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o Late Suri babu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36, Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant.
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Trinadha Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific performance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Publication not filed against defendant. Plaintiff called absent No representation on behalf of plaintiff. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation : 21-12-2015 Date of filing:21-12-2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Anakapalli
Wednesday, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.254/2015
Between:
Sri Karri Bhaskara Rao,S/o Suryanarayana, Hindu, age 38 years, cultivation, residing at D.No.10-63, Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
Sri Villuri Bhaskara Rao, S/o Late Suri babu, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, residing at D.No.2-36, Ummalada village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendant.
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of the plaint schedule property directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed for the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendant do not do so, the court to register the sale deed; if for any reason the specific paerformance cannot be ordered, for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is
Rs.6,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid under Sec.39 Sch.I Art.I(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F.& S.V.ACT.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri B.Trinadha Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff. Plaintiff called absent No representation and having stood over till this day for consideration this court doth order and:
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 7th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Anakapalli
Tuesday, this the 13th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.69/2013
Between:
Sri Chapala Gopi,S/o Bandiyya,Hindu, age 38 years, catering business, residing at D.No.20-3-10, Ambedkar Nagar, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
1) Mogalapalli Parvathi, D/o late Venkataramana, Hindu, age 56 years, household duties, residing at D.No.11-1-8, Opp.Kanyaka parameswari temple shopping complex, main road, Anakapalli village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Mogalapalli Appalaraju Kumari, D/o late Venkataramana, Hindu, age 53 years, house hold duties-rest-do-
3) Mogalapalli Venkata Bhanu Murthy, S/o late Venkataramana, Hindu, age 50 Years, -rest-do-. Defendants
This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of
Sri B.Trinadha Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad,
Advocate for defendants. Plaintiff called absent No representation and having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Suit filed for recover a sum of Rs.6,30,666/- being the principal of
Rs.5,00,000/- due on a promissory note dated 6-3-2012 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.
PW1 absent costs not paid. Plaintiff called absent. No representation on behalf of plaintiff. PW1 did not turn up to this court since long time though granted adjournments given on costs. Hence this suit is dismissed for default without costs.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 13h day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL
PSCJ/AKP
Date of Presentation : 08-04-2013 Date of Filing:08-04-2013
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLI
Present: Sri M.P.Sannidhi Rao,
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Anakapalli
Tuesday, this the 13th day of June, 2017.
O.S.No.69/2013
Between:
Sri Chapala Gopi,S/o Bandiyya,Hindu, age 38 years, catering business, residilng at D.No.20-3-10, Ambedkar Nagar, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Plaintiff. And:
1) Mogalapalli Parvathi, D/o late Venkataramana, Hindu, age 56 years, household duties, residing at D.No.11-1-8, Opp.Kanyaka parameswari temple shopping complex, main road, Anakapalli village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2) Mogalapalli Appalaraju Kumari, D/o late Venkataramana, Hindu, age 53 years, house hold duties-rest-do-
3) Mogalapalli Venkata Bhanu Murthy, S/o late Venkataramana, Hindu, Age 50 years, -rest-do-. Defendants
Suit filed for recover a sum of Rs.6,30,666/- being the principal of Rs.5,00,000/- due on a promissory note dated 6-3-2012 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a.and with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.6,30,666/- and a court fee of Rs.8,826/- is paid under Sec.20 Sch.I Art.I(b) and (c) of A.P.C.F.& S.V.ACT.
This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri B.Trinadha Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri A.V.S.Bhavani Prasad, Advocate for defendants. Plaintiff called absent No representation and having stood over till this day for consideration this court doth order
DECREE
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;
2) that there be no costs;
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 13th day of June, 2017.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF; FOR DEFENDANT;
No costs memo is filed on either side.
PSCJ/AKP
1
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT ANAKAPALLE
(FAST TRACK COURT)
Present Sri S. SRINIVASA RAO
Principal Senior Civil Judge
FAC Addl. Senior Civil Judge (FTC) Anakapalle
Monday, this the 30th day of December, 2019
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 206 / 2007
Between:
Gompa Seethamma, W/o Seetha Ramam, Hindu, Housewife, aged 65 years, R/o Sabbavaram, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
... Plaintiff.
And:
1.Gorle Peru Naidu, S/o Satyam, aged 63 years, Cultivation, Sabbavaram, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Mahalakshmi, W/o Gorle Peru Naidu (wife of 1st Defendant), aged 55 years, rest -do-.
3. Gorle Pydam Naidu, S/o Satyam, aged 40 years, rest do-
4. Gorle Jagam, W/o Gorle Pydam Naidu (wife of 3rd Defendant), aged 35 years, rest -do-.
5. Gorle Krishna, S/o Gorle Pydam Naidu (son of 3rd Defendant), aged 28 years, rest -do-.
6. Gorle Kumar, S/o Gorle Pydam Naidu (son of 3rd Defendant), aged 34 years, rest -do-.
7. Gorle Hima Bindu, W/o Gorle Kumar (wife of 6th defendant), aged 30 years, rest -do-.
8.Gorle Ramanamma, W/o Gorle Krishna (wife of 5th defendant), aged 29 years, rest -do-.
9.Gorle Satya Naidu @ Kalla Satya naidu, S/o Satyam, aged 55 years, rest -do-.
10.Gorle Simhachalam, S/o Satyam, aged 50 years, rest -do-.
...Defendants.
2
The suit is coming before me for final hearing on 06-12-2019, in the presence of Sri A.V.S. Bhavani Prasad, Advocate, for the plaintiff, and of Sri V.V. Jogayya, and Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, Advocates, for Defendants
No.1 to 3, defendants 4 to 10 remained exparte, upon perusing the material, upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The above named plaintiff, has filed the suit, for relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property after ejecting the defendants, their men, there from by removing them their temporary or any type of constructions if any, for past mesne profits of Rs.2,000/- with court rate of interest at the Court rate, for future mesne profits with court rate of interest at the Court rate, and for costs and for other reliefs as the court deems fit.
2.As per the averments of plaint the case of plaintiff in brief that:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.
Her brother, Sri Vunudurthi Appala Narasinga Rao, gifted the same to her.
He executed a registered gift deed, dated 06-09-1984, that was registered as document no. 3790 of 1984, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sabbavaram.
The plaintiff accepted the said gift and took possession of the plaint schedule property. Ever since the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaint schedule property is a vacant site. Further originally, the schedule property is one of the properties among several other properties that were purchased by the father of the plaintiff namely V. Seetha Ramayya
Panthulu garu, that was devolved on her donor in the family arrangements of her father’s family. Prior to the plaintiff, her donor was in possession and enjoyment of the same.
3.Further, while the matter stood, thus, the defendant No.1, without any manner of right, started keeping his hay heaps and tethering his cattle in the 3 plaint schedule property. The husband of the plaintiff several times warned him and also questioned him about his illegal use of the plaint schedule property.
But, he did not change his attitude. The other defendants were all his relatives.
They are also extending their illegal supports to him. The plaintiff is a lady.
Her husband and she are old and sick people. They are also innocent and helpless people. The defendant no.1 has got lot of men, money at his command.
Taking advantage his might and also of the innocence and helpless conditions of the plaintiff and of her husband, the defendants fenced the plaint schedule property. Thus, they have made an illegal entry and are now trying to appropriate the same to him. The defendants have no right, title, possession, and enjoyment of the property at any point of time till they made illegal entry.
Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.
4.On the other hand, as per the docket orders of this court, dated 08- 02-2008, 1st defendant filed written statement, whereas, defendants 2 and 3 adopted the same. As per the contents of written statement of 1st defendant, the plea of defendants 1 to 3 is that, the suit is not maintainable under law, the plaintiff has no right, title or possession to any of the property, which is in the possession and enjoyment of the 1st defendant, the property in possession of 1st defendant is bounded by East: Rasta, South: the house of daughter of Neetipalli
Nookalu, West: the property belongs to Adireddy Ramana and others, North:
Rasta. The said property originally, belongs to Vunudurthi Venkata Surya Subba
Rao, son of Venkataramanayya, while he enjoying the said property, sold away the same to the 1st defendant through a registered sale deed, dated 19-12-1977 and 1st defendant took possession of the said property. To the North of the property purchased under the sale deed is with a small bit of vacant site belonging to the vendor of the 1st defendant Venkata Surya Subba Rao, which is upto the rasta on Northern side. The 1st defendant took possession of the entire 4 property, purchased under the sale deed as well as the vacant site belonging to
Surya Subba Rao. Subsequently, the defendants vendor Surya Subba Rao, sold away the vacant site also to the 1st defendant by way of oral sale and confirmed title to the 1st defendant. Accordingly, the 1st defendant is in the possession and enjoyment of the total extent of site covered under the sale deed with the vacant site upto rasta on Northern side since, 1977 itself.
5.Further, after the purchase of the property, the 1st defendant mortgaged the said property and obtained a loan and constructed a house in the site purchased by him through the sale deed and constructed a thatched house, cattle shed in the vacant site on North. He mortgaged said property on 16-02- 1981 and the house was assessed to tax by the Gram Panchayat. He planted coconut trees all around the house including the vacant site about 25 years back. The coconut trees planted by him are fruit bearing and enjoying usu fruit of the trees continuously till date. He dug a well on the North-East corner of the property which is situated in the vacant site abutting to the rasta and in front of the house on Norther side. He dug the well even before the construction of the house for the purpose of watering and useful for the construction activities and for drinking water. He paying the taxes to the panchayat regularly since the date of construction and assessment by 1981. Subsequently, after construction of the house, he leased out the same for the Post and Telegram department and executed a sale deed in his favour. The postal department used to pay monthly rent of Rs.500/- and they were in the said house as tenants till 1990. Thus, the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property from 1977 onwards till date continuously and openly to the knowledge of the entire village including all the persons interested in the property. The right and title of the 1st defendant besides his purchase and title to the property perfected by adverse possession also, neither the plaintiff nor her donor as alleged never exercised their right 5 over the property purchased by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant openly exercised his right over the property from 1977 onwards till the date.
6.Further, the plaintiff has no knowledge about the existence of property at all. There is no property either vacant site or any other property as described in the schedule. No such property is in existence. The plaintiff failed to mention the survey number or patta number or its identification in the schedule.
The property is in possession of the 1st defendant ever called as “Meesalavari
Doddi”. The property called as Meesalavari Doddi is at faraway place which is at a distance of more than half kilometer from the property which is in the possession of 1st defendant. The plaintiff failed to mention neither the measurements of the property nor its extent in the schedule. Thus, with the description given by the plaintiff in the schedule, the property cannot be identified by any prudent man. The suit is not maintainable under law without specifying the property. The plaintiff failed to ever and plead, when the 1st defendant has occupied the property and since from which point of time, the 1st defendant exercising right over the property. It clearly shows that, the plaintiff has no knowledge about the identity of the property and its existence. There is no cause of action against the defendants and the cause of action covered under the para no.4 of the plaint is totally wrong. The defendants 2 to 10 are not necessary parties and they have no right or title over the property. They were unnecessarily added to the suit and dragged them a court of law and made them to engage counsel and spend money. Thus, the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties. Those defendants are entitled for compensatory costs as against the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not entitle for any possession over schedule priority and she cannot seek for relief of removal of construction made by the 1st defendant.
The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief of past or future profits and submitted to dismiss the suit with costs.
6
7.Whereas, defendants 4 to 10 remained exparte.
8.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.
1 Whether the plaintiff is entitle for recovery of vacant possession of plaint schedule property as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for past and future mesne profits as prayed for?
3. Whether there is proper cause of action for the suit?
4. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties?
5. To what relief?
9.In order to prover her case, the plaintiff, her self examined as PW1, and also examined her brother as PW2, and got marked Ex A1 and A2.
10.On the other hand, the 1st defendant himself examined as DW1, and also examined to third party witnesses DW2 and DW3, and got marked
Exs B1 to B6.
11.Heard the arguments on both sides.
12.During the course of evidence, the plaintiff as PW1, she reiterated averments of the plaint in her evidence affidavit, and marked Ex A1 and A2. Ex
A1 is the registration extract of gift deed executed by V. Appala Narasinga Rao in favour of Gompa Seethamma, dated 06-09-1984. Ex A2 is the registered sale deed executed by Sri. Dantla Venkata Subba Rao, in favour of V. Seetha
Ramayya Panthulu, dated 15-09-1947. PW2 Vunudurthi Appala Narasinga Rao, in his evidence, it is stated that, he is brother of the plaintiff and he executed gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property i.e., Ex A1, and handed over the same to the plaintiff along with the sale deed of his father, dated 05-09-1947 i.e., Ex A2.
13.On the other hand, the 1st defendant as DW1, in his evidence affidavit, he reiterated the averments of his written statement, and marked Exs
B1 to B6. Ex B1 is the registered sale deed, dated 19-12-1977 7 vide document no. 4962/1977 of S.R.O. Anakapalle. Ex B2 is the registered mortgage deed, dated 16-02-1981 vide document no.879/1981 of S.R.O.
Visakhapatnam. Ex B3 is the registered extention of mortgage deed, dated 05-03-1983 vide document no.2495/1983 of S.R.O. Visakhapatnam. Ex B4 is the discharge of mortgage deed, dated 22-04-1999. Ex B5 is the certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 12-03-1990 vide document no. 396/1990 of
S.R.O. Sabbavaram. Ex B6 is the approved plan stands in the name of 1st defendant. DW2 Kolli Ramakrishna, DW3 Geddam Suryanarayana, who are the third parties to the suit proceedings, in their evidence affidavit, they reiterated the averments of evidence affidavit of DW1, stating that, D1 purchased the property from Vunudurthi Venkata Surya Subbarao, and took possession of the property, and D1 is in the possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute right and tile.
14.ISSUE NO. 4
Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties?
Defendants contended that, D2 to D10 are nothing to do with the schedule property, so, they are not necessary parties to the suit, and they have no right or title over the property, only in order to harass them and to drag them to the court of law, the plaintiff made them as a parties to the suit for which they engaged counsel and spent money, so, the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties.
On the other hand, the plaintiff contended that without any manner of right, 1st defendant started keeping his hayheeps and tethering his cattle in the plaint schedule property, the husband of the plaintiff several times warned the 1st defendant and also questioned him his illegal use of plaint schedule property, but, he did not change his attitude. Her further plea is the other defendants are all the relatives of the 1st defendant, further, they are also extending their illegal support to the 1st defendant, for that reason, this suit is filed against them also.
8
On the other hand, it is not the plea of the 1st defendant or defendants 2 to 10, that, the defendants 2 to 10 are not the relatives of the 1st defendant, except denying that, the defendants interfering with the plaintiff over the schedule property and claiming the right of the 1st defendant over the schedule property.
So, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that, defendants 2 to 10 are not the necessary parties to the suit. Accordingly, it cannot be said that, the suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties i.e., Defendants 2 to 10. Accordingly, this issue was answered.
16.ISSUE NO. 1
Whether the plaintiff is entitle for recovery of vacant possession of plaint schedule property as prayed for?
ISSUE NO.3
Whether there is proper cause of action for the suit?
As seen from the record, the contention of the plaintiff is that, she is absolute owner of the schedule property i.e., “Sathram Khamdam”,
Meesalavari Doddi a vacant site situated at Sabbavaram village, situated to the
South of the Rasta, With East to West : 40 yards and North to South : 20 yards, total extent is 800 Square yards bounded by East: Rasta, South: Property of
Yadla Sanni and that of the plaintiff, West: Property of Yadla Sanni and that of the plaintiff and North: Rasta. The said property was originally purchased by her father Sri Vunudurthi Seetha Ramayya Panthulu garu, along with the other properties by virtue of sale deed in the year 1947, thereafter in family arrangements the said property was fell to the brother of the plaintiff namely
Vunudurthi Appala Narasinga Rao, thereafter, her brother gifted her schedule property by virtue of registered gift settlement deed, dated 06-09-1984. She accepted the gift, since then she has been possession and enjoyment of the schedule property with absolute right and title. She further contended that, without having any manner of right and title over the schedule property, 9 the 1st defendant illegally using the same by means of keeping his hayheeps, also tethering his cattles in it, further in spite of the husband of plaintiff questioned the 1st defendant for several times about his illegal acts in schedule property, the 1st defendant did not change his attitude, apart from that, the defendants 2 to 10 are supporting the acts of the 1st defendant who are his relatives. Further contented that, exactly about one year back that, on 13-07-2007 the 1st defendant made an illegal entry, resulting in dispossession of the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property, the defendants fenced the plaint schedule property, now they are trying to appropriate the same.
17.On the other hand, defendants contended that, either the plaintiff or the brother of the plaintiff or the father of the plaintiff was never in the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, they have no right or title over the schedule property at any point of time, the 1st defendant purchased the same from his vendor namely Vunudurthi Venkata Surya Subba Rao, orally, as the 1st defendant purchased the property from his vendor by means of registered sale deed, dated 19-12-1977, further, the disputed property is a vacant site of his vendor situated to the North of the property purchased by D1 under registered sale deed, so, he purchased the same from his vendor orally for valid consideration, and he is in the possession and enjoyment of the property purchased by him under registered sale deed as well as the schedule property which was purchased by him orally, so, either the plaintiff or her brother or her father are nothing to do with schedule property.
18.The contention of the plaintiff is that, her father purchased schedule property and other properties under Ex A2 in the year 1947 itself, in Ex
A2 the schedule property was showned as 3rd item. Later, the schedule property devolved on her brother in family arrangements, on that, her brother gifted the same to her through a registered a gift settlement deed, Ex A1 by virtue of 10
Ex.A1, she became absolute owner of the schedule property and she is having right and title over the schedule property. She examined her brother as PW.2.
So far as, evidence of PW.2 is concerned, in his chief examination, he supported the version of the plaintiff and stated that, he gifted the schedule property to the pleadings under Ex.A1. The specific contention of the plaintiff is that, in order to
Ex.A1, her brother PW2 used to in the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, prior to that her father used to in the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, since the date of Ex A1, she is in the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property with absolute right and title.
Her further plea is that, while she is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property with absolute right and title, the defendants dispossessed her, so, she entitled for the recovery of possession of the same. On the other hand, the specific contention of the defendants is the plaintiff was never in the possession of the schedule property, so, the question of dispossession does not arise. Except Ex A1 and A2 the plaintiff have not filed any documents to show her possession in respect of schedule property to show that, she was dispossessed. During the course of evidence, the plaintiff as PW1, in her cross examination, she categorically stated that, she have not filed any document to show the possession of either herself, or her brother, or the possession of her father over schedule property.
19.The defendants further contended that, the plaintiff failed to aver and plead when the 1st defendant occupied the property and since in which point of time the 1st defendant is exercising right over the property, which clearly shows that plaintiff has no knowledge about the identity of the property and its existence, there is no cause of action to file the suit and alleged cause of action is totally wrong. So, far as dispossession of the plaintiff from the schedule property is concerned, as per the averments of the plaint, taking advantage of 11 the innocence and helplessness of the plaintiff and her husband, defendants fenced the plaint schedule property, thus, they have made a illegal entry and are trying to appropriate the same to the 1st defendant. So far as, para of cause of action is concerned that in the plaint is concern the defendant made an illegal entry, resulting in dispossession of the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property exactly about one year back that 13-07-2007, and became liable to the claims of the plaintiffs. So except mentioned in the cause of action para of plaint that, one year back to the date 13-07-2007, no specific date and time was pleaded in the plaint to show at what point of time the plaintiff was dispossessed and since which point of time the 1st defendant is exercising right over the schedule property.
20.The learned counsel for the defendant contended that, though the plaintiff claiming relief of possession of the schedule property, the title of the plaintiff is disputing by the defendants, so, the plaintiff has to establish her title also. Either the plaintiff or her brother or her father have no title over the schedule property, before filing the suit, the plaintiff did not got issue any notice to the defendants, even though, as per the averments of the plaint itself, the 1st defendant is using the schedule property for keeping his hayheeps and tethering cattles, so, except after receiving the notice of suit, there is no opportunity to the defendants to deny the title of the plaintiff. Accordingly, they denied the title of the plaintiff by filing written statement. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not got issue any notice to the defendants before filing the suit, except stating in the plaint that, the defendants have no title over the schedule property and the plaintiff is the absolute owner for the schedule property.
21In order to establish her title over the schedule property the plaintiff got marked Ex A1 and A2. Ex A1 is the certified copy of gift settlement deed, said to have been executed by the brother of the plaintiff i.e. PW2. Ex A2 is 12 registered sale deed. The contention of the plaintiff under Ex A2 is that, her father purchased the schedule property with other properties under Ex A2 and schedule property is the third item in the Ex A2. The specific contention of the defendants is, the property purchased under Ex A2 is not at all the property in the possession of the 1st defendant herein. The property in the possession of the 1st defendant was never called as “Sathram Khandam”, Meesalavari Doddi,
Sabbavaram. The property called as Meesalavari Doddi is at faraway place which is at a distance of more than half kilometer from the property which is in the possession of the 1st defendant. The further contention of defendants is except mere filing Ex A2, the plaintiff have not examine any witness in order to prove the execution of Ex A2, so, the plaintiff failed to prove Ex A2.
22The specific contention of the plaintiffs is that Ex A2 is more than 30 years old document, no party to the Ex A2 is available to examine them, so, the presumption under Sec. 90 of Indian Evidence Act applicable to the proof of Ex A2, so, as per presumption under section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, the plaintiff is able to prove Ex A2 which is 30 years old document.
23For his proposition the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision reported in
AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1253
between Sri Lakhi Baruah and others appellants Vs
Sri Padma Kanta Kalita and others respondents,
wherein it held by the lordship at para no.15 of its Judgment.
Para No.15 Section 90 of the Evidence Act is founded on necessity and convenience because it is extremely difficult and sometimes not possible to lead evidence to prove handwriting, signature or execution of old documents after lapse of thirty years. In order to obviate such difficulties or improbabilities to prove execution of an old document. Section 90 has been incorporated in the Evidence Act, which does away with the strict rule of proof of private documents. Presumption of genuineness may be raised if the documents in question in produced 13 from proper custody. It is, however, the discretion of the Court to accept the presumption following from section
90. There is, however, no manner of Court that judicial discretion under Section 90 should not be exercised arbitrarily and not being informed by reasons.
24.The learned counsel for the plaintiff further contended that at the time of execution of Ex A1 gift settlement deed, the brother of the plaintiff PW2 handedover the Ex A2 to the plaintiff, who is proper custodian of Ex A2.
Document Ex.A2 was produced from proper custody, so that, presumption under
Section 90 can be drawn in favour of the plaintiff. In order to prove Ex A2. For his proposition he relied upon a decision reported in
AIR 1982 Andhra Pradaesh 24
between Satyapramoda Thirthaswmulavaru Appellants
Vs Mula Gunnayya (deceased) and others Respondents.
Wherein it was held by the lordship at para no. 25 of its Judgment.
Para No. 25 In this case, there is evidence for the resumption of the secondary evidence provided by Ex B268 the reply of the District Court that the document was destroyed as per rules. It has been produced, admittedly from proper custody. Therefore, the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act can be drawn in respect of the certified copy of the Special Vakalat Ex B47.
25On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants contended that the presumption available under section 90 of Indian Evidence
Act as to the documents 30 years old regarding genuineness of document only but not regarding truth of contents thereof. For his proposition he relied upon a decision reported in
2014(1) ALD 180
between Danala Apparao Vs District Collector,
where in it was held by the lordship at para no. 26 of its Judgment, further the case law submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff was also discussed in the case law submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants.
14
Para No. 26 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also contended that the school records are 30 year old documents and that the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is in their favour to show that they belong to Scheduled Tribe. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon Sri Lakhi Baruau Vs Sri Padma Kanta Kalita, AIR 1996 SC 1253. Under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872, a presumption can be drawn regarding the genuineness of a 30 year old document. However, the presumption is not regarding the true of the contents of the document. Merely because in a 30 year old document the social status of the petitioners was shown as Scheduled Tribe, the petitioners cannot contended that they belongs to Scheduled Tribe. At the same time, school record is one of the relevant factors to be considered under Rule 8 (d)(5) of 1997 Rules to determine the social status of the applicant. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribe which is evident not only from the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maredumilli but also from the school record and from the admitted fact that the father of the petitioners belonged to Scheduled Tribe Community.
26The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, the brother of the plaintiff PW2 executed gift settlement deed and plaintiff accepted the same so, the defendants cannot question the validity of gift settlement deed executed by brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff marked the certified copy of gift settlement deed Ex A1. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon decision reported in
AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2040
between Surendra Kumar Appellant Vs Nathulal Respondents
wherein it was held by the lord ship at para no. 12 of its judgment.
Para no. 12 Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides: “123. Transfer how effected.- For the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses”. In the present case there exists a registered deed of gift signed by the donor and attested by two witnesses. Therefore, the requirement of the law as incorporated in the Section is satisfied. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence 15
Act, 1872 makes a provision regarding proof of execution of a document required by law to be attested. Therein it is laid down that; “If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution , if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.” The proviso to the section, which is relevant for the present purpose, reads: “Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.” (Emphasis supplied) On a plain reading of the proviso, it is manifest that a registered deed of gift can be received in evidence without examining one of the attestors if the person who has executed the deed of gift has not specifically denied its execution. In the present case, the donor Chand Bai has specifically admitted execution of the deed of gift in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the lower appellate Court was in error in holding that the deed of gift has not been duly proved since one of the attestors has not been examined as witness. Indeed the certified copy of the registered deed of gift was produced in the trial Court along with an application filed by the plaintiff in the previous suit, Suit No.69/70(4/76) that the same may be called for. The trial Court, being satisfied about the reason for non-production of the original document, marked the certified copy of the deed of gift as Exhibit-3.
27.The learned counsel for the plaintiff further relied upon a decision reported in
AIR 2009 Patna 109
Between Radhika Devi Vs Rajesh Kumar Niranjan and others
Where in it was held by the lord ship at para no. 19 of its judgment.
Para No. 19 It is an admitted fact that there were two attesting witnesses of the deed of gift (Ext.D) and hence the provision of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was fully complied. Furthermore from the record of 16 the case it transpires that at the instance of the defendants summons were duly sent by the Court and served upon the said two attesting witnesses but they did not appear for deposing in the case for reasons best known to them and hence the provision of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 was also fulfilled as the requirement of proving a document by the attesting witnesses was made subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. Hence, due to non appearance of the attesting witnesses even after due notices no adverse inference can be drawn against the said deed of gift (Ext.D), specially when the executant of the deed, namely original defendant No.1 Bipti Devi had clearly stated in her written statement that she had executed the deed of gift (Ext.D) which was also fully supported by the scribe of the said deed of gift. Ext. D who had deposed as D.W.11. In the said circumstances, the learned Courts below rightly held that the provisions of law were fulfilled and the aforesaid deed of gift Ext.D cannot be said to be not proved to be genuine and valid document.
28.The learned counsel for the plaintiff further relied upon a decision reported in
AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5559
Between Smt. Bayanabai Kawre Vs. Rejendrababurao Dhote
Where in it was held by its lord ship at para No.s 20, 21, 22 and 23 of its
Judgment.
Para No. 20 It is for the reasons that, firstly, the execution of the sale deed does not need any attesting witness like the gift deed, which requires at least two attesting witnesses at the time of its execution as per Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; and Secondly, Section 68 of the
Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the examination of the attesting witness to prove the execution of the document, does not apply to sale deed, which is governed by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Para No. 21 It is not in dispute that the appellant (defendant) in this case did not dispute the respondent’s vendor’s (Housing Society) title. On the other hand, she, in clear terms, admitted their title in her written statement. It is also not in dispute that the respondent entered in witness box and proved its execution and further did not raise any 17 objection when the sale deed was being exhibited in evidence and indeed, rightly for want of any legal basis.
Para No.22 In the light of these admitted facts, we are of the view that the sale deed dated 29-12-1981 was duly proved by the respondent and was, therefore, rightly relied on by the High Court for passing a decree of possession against the appellant. It was, in our opinion, a clear case where the respondent had a better title of the suit land as against the appellant, who had no title to the suit land. All that the appellant had was a plea of adverse possession which was not held proved.
Para No. 23 This being the only point involved in the case and the same having been answered against the appellant, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.
29The learned counsel for the plaintiff further relied upon a decision reported in
AIR 2012 Chattisgarh 155
Between Sheikh Baboo Vs. Madanlal Jaiswal and another
Wherein it was held by its lord ship at para no. 13 of its Judgment.
Para No. 13 Although, the appellant was entitled to show by leading evidence that the transaction was only a sham or nominal transaction and was not intended to be acted upon and the sale deed (Ex.P-1) was executed by him as a collateral security to the loan taken by him but he utterly failed to substantiate the same by adducing legal and cogent evidence therefore, in the absence whereof, a registered sale deed cannot be termed as nominal transaction. On the other hand, plaintiff had successfully proved his title by proving registered sale deed executed by appellant in his favour. When the suit is based on title for possession, once the title is established on the basis of relevant documents and other evidence, unless the defendant proves circumstances, showing the sale deed as fictitious one or colourable device, which cloaked something else, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited.
30.The learned counsel for the plaintiff further relied upon a decision reported in; 18
AIR 1994 Andhra Pradesh 164
Between Sheriff Iqbal Hussian Ahmad Appellants
Vs Kota Venkata Subbamma and others Respondents
Wherein it was held by the lordship at para no. 8 of its Judgment.
Para No. 8The relief of seeking eviction of the defendants and consequent delivery of possession to the plaintiffs is traceable to Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act which reads: “A person entitled to the possession of specific immovable property may recover it in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ” Order 21, Rule 35 of Civil Procedure Code states “where a decree is for the delivery of any immovable property, possession thereof shall be delivered to the party to whom it is adjudged or such person he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf and if necessary by removing any person bound by the decree who refused to vacate the property. “What is relevant and worthy of notice is that the plaintiff gets or the defendant is obliged or constrained to give the very property and not merely damages for retaining or continuing to retain the property. The confirmed and concluded findings of fact are that the plaintiffs are the legal owners of the suit schedule properties, that the defendants were aware of want of title of their vendor i.e., the 1st defendant, that they were aware of the ownership of the plaintiffs, that the 1st defendant was not the ostensible owner, thus, ruling out the application of doctrine of Holding Out. As such, there was no discretion left either for the trial court or the learned Single Judge, but to grant specific relief of possession and there cannot be any exception to it. On proof of plaintiffs’ title to the property, the court has to grant a decree for possession for it has no discretion to deny it. The court cannot give any equitable relief to mitigate or sustain the consequences laid down by the statute. The plain provisions of the statute cannot be whittled away by the application of equitable doctrines.
31.The learned counsel for the plaintiff further relied upon a decision reported in
AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1132
Between Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanam Appellants
Vs K.M. Krishnaiah Respondents.
19
Wherein it was held by the lordship at para no. 15 of its Judgment.
Para No.15 The plaintiff’s case that he and his predecessors were in possession for more than 60 years was therefore found against him. If that be so, the plaintiff could not claim that he must be taken to be one of the ‘encroachers’ referred to in Ex. B6 delivery receipt dated 12-1-1946. Therefore, there was no scope for the learned Judge to hold that the plaintiff was in possession before or after 12-1-1946 so as to prescribe title by adverse possession against the TTD resulting in extinguishment of the title of the TTD. In any event, when there was no issue on the question of adverse possession in the Courts below, the Second Appellate Court could not, for the first time, have given a finding that the title of the TTD stood extinguished. The following finding in Second Appeal that, for the TTD: “. . . . . . no physical possession of the property was obtained till, 12- 1-1976 or thereafter. The defendants” title to the suit property was thus extinguished”. Is, therefore, unsupportable. We accordingly set aside the same and hold that the TTD continues to have absolute title to the property of Ac.2.29 in S.N. 669/1 and 669/2 and that its title never stood ‘extinguished’. Point 2 is decided accordingly against the plaintiff and in favour of the appellant.
32.The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon a decision reported in
AIR 1999 Delhi 314
Between Smt. Suman Mahajan Appellants
Vs Kusum Sandhu and another Respondents
Wherein it was held by the lordship at para no. 22, 27 and 30 of its
Judgment.
Para No. 22 A reading of the aforesaid two paragraphs of the alleged agreement would indicate that there is some ambiguity with regard to the payment of the consideration. It is possible to read the last sentence of the recital clause, as suggested by the learned counsel for the Appellants, to mean that the consideration was paid on the day of the execution of the agreement. On the other hand, Clause 1 of the agreement indicates, as suggested by the learned counsel for the Smt. Kusum Sandhu that there is a balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which is required to be paid to the Vendor, that is, Smt. Gobind Kaur. In view of this, it is 20 contended by the learned counsel for Smt. Kusum Sandhu that the allegd agreement dated 4 th August 1986 does not clearly indicate when (if at all) the consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid.
Para No. 27 In view of this, we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for Smt. Kusum Sandhu that the evidence, or rather the lack of it, leaves no room for doubt that there was no payment of Rs.2,00,000/- by Narang to Smt. Gobind Kaur as a consideration for the alleged agreement
dated 4 th August 1986.
Para No.30 For all these reasons, we have no option but to hold that the Appellants have not been able to prove the existence and validity of the agreement dated 4 th August 1986. Accordingly, we confirm the findings of the learned
Additional District Judge with regard to Issue Nos 2, 5
and 7. These issues are decided in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 and against the Defendants / Appellants.
33.The learned counsel for the plaintiff further relied upon a decision reported in
AIR 1970 Bombay 405
Between Mariumbi Aslam Khan and another, Appellants
Vs Vithoba Yeshwanta and another, Respondents
Wherein it was held by the lordship at para no 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17
Para No. 12 We have held above that Fakir Mohammed Khan was in possession of the suit lands for a period of at least 20 years prior to 1948. The evidence shows that his possession was open, exclusive and continuous and that it was not traceable to any permission given by the defendants’ predecessors who were the original owners of the lands. Under the circumstances, it is possible to hold that Fakir Mohammed Khan had become the owner of the suit lands by adverse possession. It was deposed to by the first plaintiff and admitted in the evidence of the 7 th defendant that the plaintiffs are the only heirs of Fakir Mohammed Khan and his sons Aslamkhan and Mominkhan. Thus the evidence in the case would lead to the conclusion that the plaintiffs’ title to the suit lands as owners has been established by adverse possession. We, however, find that the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed in 21 this suit even on the finding, firstly, that the plaintiffs’ predecessors were in possession of the suit lands and, secondly, that the defendants have no better right to possession than the plaintiffs.
Para No. 13 It is necessary to observe before proceeding further that the defendants right to possession of the lands cannot be established merely from the fact that, at some time in the past, their ancestors were the owners of the lands. If in the year 1948 instead of illegally occupying the lands, the defendants had filed a suit for possession, they could not have succeeded without showing that they or their predecessors were in possession of the lands within 12 years before the suit. The evidence shows that they were not in possession for nearly 20 years prior to 1948. They had, therefore, no subsisting title to the lands when they occupied them in or about 1948. They had also not acquired any title to the lands when the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs.
Para no. 14 As noticed earlier, in dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit, the learned trial Judge relied on Mr. Justice Broomfield’s observation in 38 Bom LR 175 : (AIR 1936 Bom 201) that when a person who has lost possession sues to recover it, he has to prove both title and possession, and that, although the presumption that title goes with possession may come to his assistance, he cannot succeed if his alleged title is disproved by the defendant who is in possession. Now, both Broomfield J. and Macklin J., who formed the Bench which decided that case, stated in their judgments that the plaintiff in the suit before them was not proved to have been in possession of the property in dispute an was not disposed by the defendant. It follows that the observations of Mr. Justice Broomfield which we have quoted earlier and on which the learned trial Judge relied were obiter and did not constitute the ratio of the decision. Moreover, those observations were contrary to several earlier decisions of this Court, including Krisharav Yeshvant Vs Vasudev Appaji, (1884) ILR 8 Bom 371, Ali Bhaudin Vs Pachubibni, (1903) 5 Bom LR 264, and Bhagwansingh Daulatsing vs Secretary of State, (1908) 10 Bom LR 571. It was held in these cases that the plaintiff, who is in peaceful possession of land without any other title thereto and who is dispossessed by the defendant, is entitled to recover possession if the defendant is not about to show a better title. In (1903) 5 Bom LR 264 mentioned above, Mr. Justiace Chandavarkar said in his judgment that “ a person in possession has a good title as against every stranger, and 22 one who dispossesses him, having no title in himself is a wrong-doer and cannot defend himself by showing that title is in some third person”. Apart from these earlier cases of this Court, the above observations of Mr. Justice Broomfield must now be held to be bad law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in nair Service Society Ltd., Vs Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165.
Para No.15 Before referring to this decision of the Supreme Court, it is desirable to consider the matter on principle. The obiter observations of Mr. Justice Broomfield in 38 Bom LR 175 : (AIR 1936 Bom 201), were based on the rule of evidence laid down in Section 110 of the Evidence Act that possession is prima facie evidence of ownership. Since the provision of Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act merely embodies rebuttable presumption, it follows, it follows, as stated by Mr. Justice Broomfield, that it is open to the defendant who is in possession at the date of the suit to rebut the presumption by disproving the plaintiff’s title. Hence Mr. Justice Broomfield concluded, by relying on the language of Section 110, that if the plaintiff’s title is disproved by the defendant, the plaintiff cannot succeed.
Para No. 16 It appears to us that a distinction must be made between the rule of evidence embodied in Section 110 of the Evidence Act and the principle on which the concept of possessory title is based. That principle is that possession constitutes by itself a limited title to the property, a title which is good against all except the rightful owner. This title, usually described as possessory title, has all the features of an estate in land. Like any other estate, it can be transferred inter vivos or by a testamentary disposition and can also be acquired by inheritance. As observed by Pollock and Wright in their “an Eassy on Possession” (Page 19).
Further, possession in law is a substantive right or interest which exists and has legal incidents and advantage apart from the true owner’s title. Hence it is itself a kind of title, and it is a natural development of the law. Whether necessary or not, that a possessor should be able to deal with his apparent interest in the fashion of an owner not only by physical acts but by acts in the law, and that as regards every one not having a better title those acts should be valid.”
Thus possession has two aspects – it is by itself a limited title which is good against all except the true owner and it is also prima facie evidence of ownership. As observed by Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C.J., in his judgment in 23
Hari Khandu Vs Dhondi Natha, (1906) 8 Bom LR 96, Possession has a two fold value: it is evidence of ownership, and is itself the foundation of a right to possession. A person who, while in peaceful possession, is dispossessed by a trespasser can file a suit and recover possession merely by proving his prior possession. The proof of prior possession in such a case is proof of the plaintiff’s possessory title, and should not be looked upon as prima facie evidence of ownership, which the plaintiff is not required to establish against the defendant, the latter being a mere trespasser. The defendant cannot resist a decree for ejectment by proving title in a third person, for such proof does not displace the limited possessory title which is enough for the plaintiff to succeed.
Para No. 17 A suit on possessory title must be distinguished from a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963 within 6 months of dispossession. The latter type of suit cannot be resisted on the ground of title, so that the suit can be maintained even against the true owner if he has dispossessed the plaintiff otherwise than in due course of law. A suit on possessory title, on the other hand, can be filed within twelve years of dispossession (Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963) and the plaintiff can maintain it against any person who does not have a better title.
34.The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon decision reported in
AIR 2018 Orissa 34
Between Panchanan Das Vs Ramesh Chandra Mishra
Wherein it was held by the lord ship at para no. 17 of its judgment.
Para no. 17 In the instant case, the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar (AIR 2008 SC 2033) (supra) and this Court in the case of Sridhar Mohanty (supra), the suit for permanent injunction simpliciter is maintainable.
35. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied upon a decision reported in
AIR 2008 Supreme Court 363
Between C. Natarajan Vs Ashim Bai and Another
Wherein it was held by the lord ship at para no. 15 of its Judgment.
24
Para No. 15. The law of limitation relating to the suit for possession has undergone a drastic change. In terms of Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to aver and plead that he not only has title over the property but also has been in possession of the same for a period of more than 12 years. However, if the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming title over the suit property in terms of Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, burden would be on the defendant to prove that he has acquired title by adverse possession.
36.The learned counsel for the plaintiff, relied upon a decision reported in
2009 AIR SCW 5439
Between L.N. Aswathama and Another Vs. P. Prakash
Wherein it was held by the lordship at Para no. 17 of its judgment.
Para No. 17 The legal position is no doubt well settled. To establish a claim of title by prescription, that is adverse possession for 12 years or more, the possession of the claimant must be physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding twelve years. It is also well settled that long and continuous possession by itself would not constitute adverse possession if it was either permissive possession or possession without animus possidendi. The pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Unless the person possession the property has the requisite animus to possess the property hostile to the title of the true owner, the period for prescription will not commence. (Vide : Periasami Vs P. Periathambi, 1995 (6) SCC 523; Md. Mohammad Ali (dead) by L.Rs Vs Jagdish Kalita, 2004 (1) SCC 271 and P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy Vs Revamma, 2007 (6) SCC 59), 2007 AIR SCW 2897.
37.The learned counsel for the plaintiff, relied upon a decision reported in
AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2033
Between Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchireddy (dead) by L.Rs and Others
Wherein it was held by the lordship at Para no. 21 of its Judgment.
25
Para No. 21 The plaintiffs and their witnesses gave evidence to the effect that Damodar Rao represented that his sister Rukminibai was the owner of the plot and negotiated for sale of the several portions thereof in favour of plaintiffs and PW3, and that Damodar Rao had attested the sale deeds in their favour and identified his sister as the vendor executant before the Sub-Registrar, at the time of registration of the sale deeds. It is no doubt true that if that was the position, it is possible for them to contend that having regard to section 41 of Transfer of Property Act, when the ostensible owner Rukminibai sold the property with the implied consent of Damodar Rao, the defendant as a transferee from Damodar Rao could not contend that the sales were not valid. They also alleged that defendant was a close relative of Damodar Rao and the sale in favour of defendant was only nominal, intended to defeat their title. But Damodar Rao in his evidence denied having made the oral gift or having attested the sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs. He also denied having identified his sister at the time of registration of the sale deeds. Whether Rukminibai’s evidence and other plaintiffs’ witnesses should be believed or whether evidence of Damodar Rao should be believed on the question of title, can be examined only when there are necessary pleadings and an issue regarding title. Further, where title of plaintiffs is disputed and claim for possession is purely based on title, and the plaintiffs have to rely on various principles of law relating to ostensible ownership and section 41 of TP Act, validity of a oral gift by way of ‘pasupu Kumkum’ under Hindu Law, estoppel and acquiescence, to put forth a case of title, such complicated questions could properly be examined only in a title suit, that is a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs, and not in a suit for an injunction simpliciter.
38.The learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied upon a decision reported in;
AIR 1996 Supreme Court 112
Between Abubakar Abdul Inamdar (dead) by L.Rs and others Appellants
Vs Harun Abdul Inamdar and others Respondents
Wherein it was held by the lordship at Para no. 5 of its Judgment.
26
Para No. 5 With regard to the plea of adverse possession, the appellant having been successful in the two Courts below and not in the High Court, one has to turn to the pleadings of the appellant in his written statement. There he has pleaded a duration of his having remained in exclusive possession of the house, but nowhere has he pleaded a single overt act on the basis of which it could be inferred or ascertained that from a particular point of time his possession became hostile and notorious to the complete exclusion of other heirs, and his being in possession openly and hostilely. It is true that some evidence, basically of Municipal register entries, were inducted to prove the point but no amount of proof can substitute pleadings which are the foundation of the claim of a litigating party. The High Court cought the appellant right at that point and drawing inference from the evidence produced on record, concluded that correct principles relating to the plea of adverse possession were not applied by the courts below. The findings, as it appears to us, was rightly reversed by the High Court requiring no interference at our end.
39.The learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied upon a decision reported in
AIR 1943 Peshawar 70
Between Mt. Basi Devi W/o L. Sagar Chand, Plaintiff - Appellant
Vs. Muslim Bank of India, in liquidation through Official Receiver, Lahore
and Others. Defendants – Respondents.
Wherein it was observed by the by the lordship “In a suit by an objector the fact that the boundaries on three sides tally is sufficient to establish the identity of the house especially when on the local inspection made by the trial Judge the decree-holder (defendant) pointed out the house which he had attached and a son of the judgment-debtor agreed that the house pointed out by the decree-holder was the one in suit.”
40. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further relied upon a decision reported in
AIR 1960 Andha Pradesh 397
Second Appeal No. 545 of 1955, against decree of Dist. Court, Ananthapur
in A.S.No.101 of 1954)
27
Between Mathaluru Bajjappa - Appellants
Vs Madamanchi Venkanna and another - Respondents.
Wherein it was held by the lordship at Para no. 7 of its Judgment.
Para No. 7 As the suit is one in ejectment as a consequential relief to that of declaration of title, the burden of proving the title set up and also the right to eject the defendant from the suit land is, under law, heavily on the plaintiffs and the question which falls to be determined in this second appeal is whether this burden has been satisfactorily discharged and whether the plaintiffs have been able to place sufficient material before the court to justify the inference that they had title to the property, or in the alternative, that they had acquired title by virtue of adverse possession. The pleading in this behalf is, that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the property the same having been acquired by their father. Venkataramanappa, for consideration from one Boya Kristappa, about thirty- five years prior to suit. The exact mode of acquisition, the date and the amount of consideration have not been specified in the plaint.
41.The learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied upon a decision reported in
AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1633
Between Madamanchi Ramaappa and another - Appellants
Vs Muthaluru Bojjappa - Respondent
Wherein it was held by the lordship at Para no. 9 of its Judgment.
Para No. 9 Aggrieved by the decree passed in his appeal by the District Court, the respondent moved the High Court under S.100 C.P.C., and his appeal was heard by Sanjeeva Rao nayudu J. The learned Judge emphasised the fact that no sale-deed had been produced by the appellants to prove their title, and then examined the documentary evidence on which they relied. He was inclined to hold that Ext. A-8 have not been proved at all and could not therefore, be received in evidence. It has been fairly conceded by Mr. Sastri for the respondent before us that this was plainly erroneous in law. The document in question being a Certified copy of a public document need not have been proved by calling a witness. Besides, no objection had been raised about the mode of proof either in the tiral Court or in the District Court. The learned 28
Judge then examined the question as to whether the said
document was genuine, and he thought that it was a doubtful document and no weight could be attached to it. A similar comment was made by him in respect of the cist receipts on which both the courts of fact had acted. In his opinion, the said documents were also not genuine and could not be accepted as reliable. He then referred to the fact that the appellants had offered security in proceedings between the respondent and his judgment debtor Boya Krishnappa, and held that the said conduct destroyed the appellants’ case; and he also relied on the fact that the lease-deeds produced by the appellants had been disbelieved and that also weakened their case. It is on these considerations that the learned Judge set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, allowed the second appeal preferred by the respondent and directed that the appellants’ suit should be dismissed with costs throughout. It is the validity of this decree which is challenged before us by the appellants and the
principal ground on which the challenge rests is that in
reversing concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, the learned Judge has clearly contravened the provisions of S.100 of the Code.
42The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, the onus of prove when both parties producing evidence, the defendant cannot as Court to decide case on plaintiffs evidence alone without looking at the defendants evidence for his proposition he relief upon
AIR 1939 Allahabad 257
Between M. Aziz Uddin Defendant, Appellant
Vs Haji Maqbal Hussian Plaintiff, Respondent.
Wherein it was observed by the lordship “There can be no question of any decision on the basis of onus of proof where both the parties produce evidence. It is the duty of the Court to arrive at a correct finding on the whole evidence before it. If there is any lacuna in the plaintiff’s evidence but it is supplied by the defendant’s evidence, it would be not only unfair, but would lead to injustice if the Court were to depend on the plaintiff’s evidence only where the onus lay on him. It is however open to the defendant not to lead any evidence where the onus is upon the plaintiff but, after having gone into evidence he cannot ask the Court not to look at and act on it. It is his evidence and he is bound by it.” 29
43.The learned counsel for the plaintiff, relied upon a decision reported in
AIR 1956 Madras 226
Between Rangayyan and another - Appellants
Vs. Innasimuthu Mudali and others - Respondents,
wherein it was held by the lord ship at para no. 6, 7, 9, 10 and 13 of its Judgment.
Para No. 6 In regard to recitals of boundaries in documents, cases falling under this head may be divided into three classes:
(a) When the recital is in a document ‘inter partes.’ In such case the recital is a joint statement made by the parties to the document and, therefore, relevant against all of them as an admission.
(b) When the recital is in a document between a party and a stranger. In such a case, the recital is relevant against the party as an admission but is not admissible in his favour - “Radha Krishna Vs Sarabeswar’, AIR. 1925 Cal 684 (2) (A): -’ Daulat Shah Vs Bishan Das’, AIR 1934 Lah 750 (A) unless the fact recited is deposed to in court by the executant of the document, in which case the recital will become admissible under S.157 of the Evidence Act to corroborate the evidence of the executant; -’Ketabuddin Vs Nafar’, AIR 1927 Cal 230(B) and see also -’Ambicacharan Vs Kumud Mohun’, AIR 1928 Cal 893 (B) or under S.155 of the Evidence Act to contradict such evidence :- ‘Dasmal Vs Sunder Singh’, Air 1937 Lah 480 (C ). (c ) when the recital is in a document between strangers.
Para No. 7 Now it is well settled that a recital as to boundary in documents between third parties is not ordinarily admissible to prove possession or title as against a person who is not a party to the document. But that rule is subject to exceptions which again can be classed under four heads viz., if those documents come within the relevancy and admissibility contemplated under (a) S. 157 and 155 of the Evidence Act; (b) S.32(3) of the Evidence Act; (c ) under S.13 of the Evidence Act; and (d0 under S.11 of the Evidence Act.
Para No.9 These two decisions lay down that a document though not ‘inter partes’ is admissible to prove the possession and title to the property I if it is used as corroboration for the oral evidence of the executant of the document.
30
In-”Mohimchandra Vs Kanailal Sana’, AIR 1930 Cal 311 (P), Suharwardy and Carlick, JJ. held referring to AIR 1927 Cal 230 (E), “In a suit for possession of land if the opposite party disputes the boundaries of the land in suit, it is open to the plaintiff to produce documents relating to neighbouring lands in which there is recital as to particular boundaries of the and in suit, and ‘such documents will be admissible to prove the plaintiffs’ title if the persons in whose favour the documents are executed are examined and admit the correctness of the boundaries.”
I need not point out that a recital which becomes admissible under S.157 to corroborate the testimony can also be used under S.155 to contradict such testimony.
Para No.10. The matter, however, does not stand merely with the relevancy and admissibility. The probative value to be attached will depend upon the circumstances of each case and may range from zero to almost clinching proof.
Para No. 13. On account of the governing qualification “by which” in regard to any transaction, if it is a case which is sought to be made admissible on the ground of the right being created claimed, modified, asserted or denied, then it must be shown to be not apart from the transaction by which it was crated, claimed etc., Instance of creation or modification of a right would be inconceivable apart from the transaction “by which” it was created or modified.
This distinction between the expression “by which” and the expression “ in which” has been emhasised in -’Brojendra Vs Mohimchandra’ AIR 1927 Cal 1 (Z6); -Asddar Ali Khan Vs Province of Assam’, AIR 1944 Cal 57 (Z7); -’Subharayulu Vs Vengamma Naidu’, AIR 1930 Mad 742 (Z8) etc. But there may be a transaction by which there has been a recognition of a right or the exercise of a right which can be proved by recitals in a document not ‘inter partes’.
In order words, a transaction in which there is a recognition by mere assertion and a recognition of the exercise of a particular instance of the same, as distinct from a transaction by which the right or custom is created, claimed, modified or denied, has got to be distinguished. The reason for this distinction is the work “claimed” denotes a demand or assertion in relation to a thing or attribute, as against or from, some person, showing the existence of a right to it in the claimant.
31
A mere assertion of a right in a document to which the person against whom the right is asserted is not a party and of which he knows nothing, is not to claim the right. The word “assertion” indicates some act or deed which may or may not follow a statement. It is on that foot that Jackson, J. held in AIR 1928 Mad 105(2)(3) that a mere statement of boundary as such cannot be classed with any of the verbs in S.13. But in doing so, with respect, the learned Judge went too far and did not give full effect to the verbs “recognised”, “exercised”.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary the word “recognised” is defined as “acknowledge validity or genuineness or character or claims or existence of, accord notice or consideration to, discover or realise nature of, treat as, acknowledge for, realise or admit that.”
In Ramanatha Iyer’s law lexicon (M.L.J. publication) at page 1089 it is mentioned : The work ‘recognise’ according to the best lexicographers, signifies to admit; to acknowledge something existing before, recognise, acknowledge. To recognise is to take cognizance of that which comes again before our notice; to acknowledge is to admit to one’s knowledge whatever comes fresh under our notice.
“Webster’s Dictionary : To admit the fact, truth or validity. To avow knowledge of to consent to admit, hold or the like to admit with a formal acknowledgment; as to recognise an obligation; to recognise a counsul.
Murray Dictionary : To acknowledge by special notice, approval or sanction; to treat as valid; as having existence or as entitled to consideration; to take notice of (a thing or person) in some way. To admit to consideration, or to a status, as being something.
Ballentine Law Dictionary : The Lawyers’ Co- operative Publishing Co., Rochester, N.Y., 3948 Edn., page 1095 : …. To try a question of fact to ratify; to adopt to become bound by a recognisance.
There is no impediment therefore on a wording of S.13 of the Evidence Act as it stands, where the existence of a right is in question, it is permissible for the party relying on its existence to prove any transaction by which it was recognised, a particular instance in which it was exercised by means of recitals of boundaries in documents not inter partes. The narrower construction that is sought to be placed upon S.13 has no merit even otherwise because as laid down by Lord Hardwicke in “Omychund Vs Barker’, 32 (1744) I AIR 21 (Z9). “The Judges and Sages of law have laid it down that there is but one general rule of evidence the best that the nature of the case will admit.”
In many cases unimpeachable documents of neighbours who would be the best persons in our country where people are rooted for generations to the same place about the possession and title of their adjoining properties would constitute the been evidence. There is no reason why what the Americans would call the grass-root evidence should be excluded and incur once more the reproach that the growth of the Indian Evid. Act has been exercised under the influence of English precedents and Indian Lawyers by so much, restrictiveness that the law of evidence has become more remarkable for what is shuts out than what is lets in.
The object of a judicial investigation seems to have become more the obscuring of the truth rather than the discovery of it. I would in this connection refer to a brilliant exposition of this aspect by the late Mr. C.P. Arnold. I.C.S. in his “Psychology applied to legal evidence and other constructions of law” (Thancker Spink and Co. Calcutta 1913). Therefore, the recitals of boundaries in documents not inter partes would be admissible under S.13 in fitting cases where the circumstances of the particular case permit such a course.
44The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that where both the parties are adduced evidence the question of burden of proof loses its importance. For his proposition, he relied upon a decision reported in
AIR 1973 Supreme Court 626
Between Smt. Premlata - Appellant Vs. Arhant Kumar Jain - Respondent,
wherein it was held by the lord ship at para no. 2 of its Judgment.
Para No. 2 Mr. O. P. Verma, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court had wrongly placed the burden on the appellant to prove that she had good grounds to leave the husband’s house and because of that erroneous approach those courts have come to a wrong conclusion. The question of burden of proof has no importance at this stage. Both parties have adduced evidence and the trial Court and the appellate Court have appreciated that evidence.
33
45.The learned counsel for the plaintiff, further relied upon decision reported in
AIR 1981 Karnataka 40
Between Smt. Parameshwari Bai – Appellant
Vs. Muthojirao Scindia – Respondent.
Wherein it was held by the lordship at para no. 18 and 19 of its judgment.
Para No. 18 We have already observed above that the presumption arising on the facts of the case is a very strong presumption and that unless the respondent adduces clear, cogent and reliable evidence, the presumption is not rebutted. The point therefore, that arises for our consideration is: Whether suggestions made, the stray sentence elicited in the course of cross-examination of the lady and the questions put on interrogation cannot be sufficient to rebut the presumption arising from the facts of the case discussed above.
Para No. 19 The interrogatories would suggest that the marriage had taken place in the year 1955. It may be before May or after May, 1955, nothing is clinching. Adverting to the suggestion put in the course of cross-examination to the respondent by the Counsel for the petitioner, it is so obvious that he had not taken instructions from the petitioner. The petitioner in her evidence has clearly stated that she did not remember as to when the marriage took place. It is for that reason that the date of marriage was not obviously mentioned in the petition nor in the reply statement filed by the Counsel for the petitioner. All of a sudden, however, in the course of cross-examination of the respondent, the counsel has nut a random suggestion whether the marriage had not taken place in the year 1957. It is obvious from reading the evidence of the petitioner and the interrogatories that this suggestion eminates from the lawyer and was not rooted in the knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, no evidentiary value can be attached. Besides a mere suggestion made and denied is not evidence at all. The petitioner has stated in the course of her evidence thus :
“I do not remember on what date and during which year I was proposed to the respondent.”
Again she has stated:
34 “I have forgotten the date of my marriage ……………. I do not know the name of Purohit. Sundaramma had arranged the Purohit. The Purohit was a Brahmin.
It is in this context that we have to appreciate the suggestion put by the Counsel to the respondent as also the so called admission made by the respondent. Having clearly stated that she does not remember as to the date or year of the marriage, it is elicited from her in the further cross-examination that the marriage took palce after the respondent retired. This is what she has stated :
“Respondent was retired by then”.
It may be seen that this sentence occurred in the same para in the beginning of which she has stated “I have forgotten the date of marriage.” It is further elicited from her “my father presented a suit and silver articles to the respondent. It may be about two years earlier to the marriage, the respondent had retired from the service”. Thus, it is clear that these stray sentences elicited in the cross-examination could hardly be constructed as admission. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Chikkam Koteswara Rao Vs Chikkam Subbarao, (AIR 1971 SC 1542) speaking through Justice Hegde, as he then was, has observed in this behalf thus:
“This admission must be read along with the evidence given by him in his chief examination……………………
If we read these statements along with his other evidence and in a harmonious manner, it is clear that what the appellant admitted was that the acquisition in question was made by his father on his behalf and the consideration for the same was paid by his father from out of the appellant’s private funds that were in the hands of his father ………………..”
Thus, the Supreme Court has pointed out that
before the right of a party can be considered to have been
defeated on the basis of an alleged admission by him, the implication of the statement made by him must be clear and conclusive. There should not be any doubt or ambiguity about the alleged admission and to examine whether there is ambiguity in the admission, it would be necessary for the court to read the other parts of the evidence and the stand taken by him in the pleadings. Considering in that way, as pointed out above, it becomes obvious that the so called admission is not an admission at all. It is a statement made out of knowledge. Hence, it 35 does not help the case of the respondent. Thus, we are satisfied, looking into the stand taken by the respondent in the proceeding and the manner in which he has deposed, having least regard for the truth, that the so-called admission and suggestions put by the Counsel for the petitioner would not render the marriage invalid. The evidence on record is neither clear nor unambiguous nor reliable. Hence the initial presumption arising from the facts of the case is not at all rebutted by the respondent. Hence, we are constrained to hold that the marriage is legal and valid and that the petitioner has the status of wife of respondent.
46.The learned counsel for the plaintiff, further relied upon decision reported in
AIR 1972 Madras 154
Between V.A. Amiappa Nainar (died) and Others – Appellants
Vs. N. Annamalai Chettiar (died) and Others – Respondents.
Wherein it was held by the lordship at para no. 13 of its judgment.
Para No. 13 On a consideration of the aforesaid decisions, we hold that the decision of the Division Bench of this court in 1914 Mad WN 779 : (AIR 1915 Mad 746) is in accordance with preponderance of authorities in various High Courts that recitals as to boundaries in documents not inter partes are inadmissible in evidence under Sections 11, 13(a), 32(3) and 32(7). As pointed out by Wadsworth, J. in AIR 1940 Mad 450, the only method by which recitals in a document not inter partes could be admitted in evidence is by examination of the executant of the document in which such recitals as to boundaries are found. In this view we hold that judgment of Ramaswami, J. in AIR 1956 Mad 226 is wrongly decided. The result is that Exs A.2 to A.6 in the present case are inadmissible in evidence.
47.The learned counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that, either pleadings nor evidence by party claiming adverse possession to show adverse possession over suit property, mere possession by the party over suit property, over the statutory period could not give the party any right to claim title by adverse possession. For his proposition he relied upon a decision reported in 36
AIR 2001 Madras 6
Between Nallan alias Keerimuthan – Appellants
Vs. Vellaiyan Kudumban and Others – Respondents.
Wherein it was held by the lordship at para no. 15 and 20 of its judgment.
Para No. 15 The next ground relied upon by the first Appellate Court was one of adverse possession. There is no statutory definition for “adverse possession”. The adverse possession must be specifically pleaded and proved by the person who raises it. In the instant case a perusal of the plaint and other documents show that neither plaintiff/first respondent has pleaded “adverse possession” nor proved it. The first Appellate Court without looking into the plaint and connected document have come to the conclusion that the first respondent has prescribed title by adverse possession in respect of share of 15 cents of lands belonging to the appellant. Without pleading and without proper proof, the first respondent cannot have prescribed title over said property by adverse possession. Any amount of evidence let in without a proper pleading is of no use and the Court cannot rely upon such evidence, when there is no pleading for “adverse possession”. The first Appellate Court has committed a clear error in coming to the conclusion that first respondent/plaintiff has prescribed title by “adverse possession”.
Para No. 20 From these decisions, it is clear that the necessary ingredients which are required for the proof of adverse possession. In the present case there is no plea in the plaint for adverse possession. The plaintiff who is the first respondent herein has also failed to let in any evidence in order to prove the prescription of title by adverse possession. His mere possession of the lands in question over statutory period cannot cloth any right on him to claim the prescription of title by adverse possession. When the plaintiff has failed to raise the question of adverse possession and absolutely there is no evidence to substantiate the prescription of title by adverse possession, the first Appellate Court committed an error in holding that the plaintiff/first respondent has prescribed title by adverse possession.
37
48.The learned counsel for the plaintiff, relied upon decision reported in;
AIR 2003 Andhra Pradesh 2
Between Syed Ale Mossa Raza and Others – Appellants
Vs. Razia Begum and Others – Respondents.
Wherein it was held by the lordship at para no. 30 of its judgment.
Para No. 30 The open acts of possession that too treating the property to be one in S. No. 194/64 can be said to have been commenced in Feb. 1964. The evidence on record does not show that the 1 st defendant was aware that the property on which she was constructing was in S. No. 129/55. It is only then that her acts of possession can be said to be adverse to that of the plaintiffs. Even if such acts to be taken as adverse to the plaintiff, it needs to be seen that the suit was filed in Dec. 1975 i.e., within 12 years from the date of commencement of construction. Therefore, it can be taken that the 1 st defendant commenced the construction in Feb. 1964. No other material is placed
before the Court to show that the acts of the defendants
constituted adverse possession spread over a period exceeding 12 years. The defendants have failed to establish their plea as to adverse possession.
49.The learned counsel for the plaintiff, relied upon decision reported in
AIR 2006 Andhra Pradesh 8
Between Nandam Mohanamma and Others
Vs. Markonda Narasimharao and Others
Wherein it was held by the lordship at para no. 18 of its judgment.
Para No. 18 Learned counsel for the appellants tried to maintain a distinction between the evidence that is adduced on behalf of his clients, on the one hand, and the so-called admission elicited through P.Ws 1 and 2, in the cross- examination, on the other. According to him, the admissions extracted in cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 2 does not come within the prohibition of Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. It is difficult to accept this proposition. The expression “oral evidence”, referred to in Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, is not confined to the one to be led by the party opposing the document referred to therein in the form of chief-examination of a witness to be examined by him. The oral evidence includes not only the one, adduced by examining the witnesses, on behalf of such party, but also the cross-examination of 38 witness by the opposite party, in relation to it. An admission or confession of a witness constitutes oral evidence and it makes little difference whether the witness was examined at the instance of the plaintiff or defendant. In other words, the prohibition operates not only in relation to the evidence of witnesses, examined by the concerned party, in relation to documents referred to in Sections 91 and 92, but also to the cross-examination of the witness examined on behalf of other party. What is prohibited directly, cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. Therefore, the distinction urged by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be maintained in law.
50.The learned counsel for the plaintiff, further relied upon decision reported in
AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1879
Between Sheodhyan Singh and Others – Appellants
Vs. Mst. Sanichara Kuer and Others – Respondents.
Wherein it was held by the lordship at para no. 7 of its judgment.
Para No. 7 We are of opinion that the present case is analogous to a case of misdescription. As already pointed out the area, the Khata number and the boundaries all refer to plot No. 1060 and what has happened is that in writing the plot number, one zero has been missed and 1060 has become
160. It is also important to remember that there is no plot bearing No.160 in Khata No. 97 in these circumstances we are of opinion that the High Court was right in holding that this is a case of misdescription only and that the identity of the property sold is well established, namely, that it is plot No. 1060. The matter may have been different if no boundaries had been given in the final decree for sale as well as in the sale certificate and only the plot number was mentioned. But where we have both the boundaries and the plot number and the circumstances are as in this case, the mistake in the plot number must be treated as a mere misdescription which does not affect the identity of the property sold. The contention of the appellants therefore with respect to this plot must fail.
51.The learned counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that without pleading of adverse possession in written statement and in evidence not seeking a word about adverse possession, plea of adverse possession is not - 39 maintainable and relied upon decision reported in AIR 2002 Madras 213 Between
P .S. M. Ahamad Abdul Khader Vs. T. K. Mohammed Abubuckar and Others.
52.The learned counsel for the plaintiff, relied upon decision reported in
AIR 1962 Andhra Pradesh 178
Between Ryali Kameswara Rao - Plaintiff, Appellant
Vs. Bendapudi Surya Prakasarao and Others – Defendants, Respondents.
Wherein it was held by the lordship at para no. 26, 27 and 28 of its judgment.
Para No. 26 The learned counsel for the appellant has subjected this endorsement to some sharp criticism. It is contended that the facts recorded are so unnatural and improbable as to throw serious suspicion about the veracity of the recitals. It is suggested that, if Seshagiri Rao was conscious when he admitted the execution of the will it is incredible that he should have lost consciousness and physical ability to affix his signature. We do not think that it is improbable that the testator might lose his consciousness suddenly. In Chalcraft Vs Ciles and Rance, 1948 P.222 a testatrix, who was on her death-bed and given a large dose of morphia, nodded her assent when the will was read over to her but
before she could complete three or four letters of her
signature, she become unconscious and, therefore, could not complete the signature. It was held by Willmer J. that although the deceased was losing her faculties at the time of attestation, she should be deemed to be mentally present to a sufficient degree to bring the case within the Wills Act, 1837. We have no reason to think that the Registrar made an incorrect or false statement. The terms of the certificate have a ring of truth.
It is next contended that the signatures of the identifying witnesses were not taken but the explanation to the omission is contained in the endorsement itself. Thirdly, it is contended that the endorsement is in contravention of the standing order 675 of the Madras Registration Manual, which provides that in a case where a person at the time of the execution of a document was able to sign his name, but owing to any special cause is no longer able to do so his thumb impression may be taken and a deposition explaining the reason for the change should be taken and a reference to the same noted in the 40 endorsement of the document. It is suggested by Mr. Sankara Sastry, that inasmuch as no such deposition was taken, the Standing Order was infringed. That being so, it is argued that the endorsement is not in accordance with law and it cannot be admitted in evidence under Sec.60 (2) of the Registration Act or Sec.35 of the Indian Evidence Act. Assuming that the terms of the Standing Order 675 aforesaid were not complied with, we are of opinion that it is a mere irregularity which is certainly curable under Sec.87 of the Act.
Para No. 27 It is, then contended that even if the endorsement is legally admissible, the probative value of the endorsement is seriously impaired by the non-examination of the Sub- Registrar, Whatever bearing the failure to examine the Sub-Registrar may have on the question of testamentary capacity, for the proof of the admission of execution, we do not think may adverse inference can be drawn from the non-examination of the Sub-Registrar because the endorsement itself is admissible in evidence and the facts recorded therein are presumed to be correct and recorded in conformity with law.
Para No. 28 In view of the direct evidence of D.Ws 1, 7 and 8 and the admission of execution of the Will by the testator as recorded in the certificate of the Sub-Registrar, we hold that Ex. B.10 contains the signature of the testator and the Will was executed by him.
53. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant, submitted that all the case laws submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, not at all applicable for the facts of the case on hand, in order to confuse the mind of the court only, the counsel for the plaintiff, relied upon several case laws, which are not relavent to the facts of the case on hand. He further contended that, since beginning itself, the defendants is disputing the title of the plaintiff over the schedule property i.e., the property in possession of the 1st defendant. He further contended, the property in the possession of the 1st defendant is not at all the property claiming by the plaintiff in the suit schedule, the property in the possession of the 1st defendant was never called as Satrava
Khandam or Meesalavari Doddi as alleged in the plaint schedule. So, basing on 41
Ex A1 and A2 the plaintiff cannot claim the property in the possession of the 1st defendant. He further contented that, when the suit for possession based on title to the suit property and defendants had denied the title of the plaintiff, it is necessary for the Court to give finding on title of the plaintiff, even if the defendants in possession had not pleaded adverse possession. For his proposition he relied upon a decision reported in
1990(0) AIR (Supreme Court) 717
Between Bhavnagar Municipality, Appellant
Vs. Union of India and others, Respondents.
Wherein it was held by the lordship at para no. 13 of its Judgment.
Para No. 13 The other documents relied on by the learned counsel in support of his contention that the title itself should have been vested in the Municipality may now be noticed. Ex. 95 dated 21 st July, 1950 is a copy of the proceedings of the Board of Officers of the Defence Department in which they have described detailed inventory of Defence department assets, accommodations, installations, furniture, fitting and connected stores pertaining to Saurashtra State forces in Bhavnagar. In this while referring to the suit lands which was stated to be in their possession a remark has been made to the effect: “The Bhavnagar Municipality claims the land in question on the basis that the whole assets of the Bhavnagar Town Planning Department had been transferred to them by orders of his Highness, Bhavnagar State in 1948 and they are collecting the Revenue from the farmers. The claim will subsequently have to be verified.” We are unable to see how on the basis of this letter the Municipality could claim a title. At best it may be treated as evidence that in July, 1950 the Municipality made a claim for the land. But at the same time it may be pointed that the document is evidence against the Municipality in so far as it treated the properties as belonging to the Defence Department of the Government of India and that the Defence Department were in possession of the same. In the two letters Ex 73 dated 30- 11-1950 and Ex &2 dated 15-6-1951 which are communications from the Government of Saurashtra it is only stated that suit lands do not vest to the Government of Saurshtra. As seen earlier, possession of the lands was handed over by the government of India to the State 42
Government only on 7-7-1952 and, therefore, these letters cannot be of any help to the appellant. However, it may be mentioned, that the Government of Saurshtra have corrected themselves in their communication dated 6 th May, 1952 and stated that the claim of the plaintiff that the lands were vested in Bhavnagar Municipality was erroneous and that the land is vested and is in the possession of Government of India. The plaintiffs have also admitted that the structures in Rasala Lines are not shown to be that of the municipality in the Municipal records and even in the plaint they did not claim the structures as belonging to the Municipality. In the suit notice the plaintiff have also not claimed that they “entered into and remained in possession of the land as stated in the plaint para 5. It is also in evidence that these buildings were there along before 1948 and that, therefore, the land alone could not have been vested in the Municipality without buildings. In fact, the Resolution No.37 dated 19 th January, 1948 which is relied on does not make any distinction and it refers to only lands and not buildings. We, therefore, agree with the finding of the High Court that possession of the land was also not taken by the Municipality at any time. It is not open to the appellant to rely on the principle that possession follows title, in this case not only there is evidence to show that physical possession was with the defendants but also there could not be any legal possession with the plaintiff as the tile to the land is not vested in them. Since the suit itself is for possession based on title and the plaintiff have not proved title it is not necessary for the defendant to plead or prove adverse possession.
54.The learned counsel for the defendant, submitted that the burden to prove her title is on the plaintiff, she has to be discharge burden on her by adducing sufficient evidence, she cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendants case, even if title setup by the defendants is found against them, in the absence of establishment of plaintiffs own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.
For his proposition he relied upon a decision reported in
2014 (2) ALD 157 (SC)
Between Union of India and Others
Vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., and Others
Where in it was held by the lordship at para no. 15 of its Judgment.
43
Para No. 15 The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff’s own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.
55.The learned counsel for the defendant, also relied upon a decision reported in
2019 (3) ALD 266
Between Silver Jublee Club, Devarakonda Village
Vs.District Collector, Nalgonda and Others
Wherein it was held by the lordship at para no. 10, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29 and 30 of its Judgment.
Para No. 10 In this case the essential questions to be decided are in between the plaintiff Club and the State. The law on the subject regarding the burden of proof in a suit for declaration is also very well-settled. In Union of India Vs Vasai Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., 2014 (2) ALD 157 (SC) = (2014) 2 SCC 269, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India clearly held that the burden of proof in a suit for declaration of title is squarely upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff will have to prove with the clear and cogent evidence their right, title and interest in a suit for declaration of title. The failure of the defendant to prove his case or the weaknesses in the defendant’s case will not entitle the plaintiff to a decree as prayed for. The burden is squarely on the plaintiff.
Para No. 20 While the case law on Order 7 Rule 3 CPC or the provisions of the Rule are not really in dispute, the question that arises in this case is about the title; possession and also the identity/the location of the property in this case. The boundaries given by the witnesses do not tally with each other. The extent said to have purchased under Ex.A1 is not clearly borne out by the record. No steps were taken to clarify the discrepancies pointed out by defendants 4 to 19 that the land is not situated in Gollavanimanyam Chelka. Despite the written statement of defendants 4 to 19 disputing the location of the land wherein they clearly pleaded that the land in which the club is situated is located in 44
Mondichinta Chelka and not in Gollavanimanyam Chelka, which is mentioned in Ex.A1, no steps were taken to clarify this issue. The plaintiff-Club did not take any steps to clarify the actual position on the ground. They did not get an Advocate Commissioner appointed to localize the land to establish the boundaries and/or to show their possession and enjoyment to the entire extent or of a lesser extent. The building plans and other records would have contained details of the appurtenant lands also if they were submitted for approval. They did not file any documents like the plans.
Para No. 21 This Court also notices the fact that with the passage of time, boundaries do undergo some changes when land acquisition, road widening, road formation or such other factors occur. Similarly, due to the sale of neighbouring lands or boundaries, encroachments etc., the actual extent of land in old documents or even the description of the ownership of the adjacent lands or the boundaries may not tally with the ground realities existing on the date of the suit or its hearing. In such cases, the burden lies on the party to prove that original boundaries are no longer available as on the date of hearing etc., by adducing evidence to show that the boundaries have changed due to certain reasons like those mentioned above. These reasons are not exhaustive but are being highlighted to show that these are capable of proof.
Para No. 22 In the case on hand, there is absolutely no evidence to support the case set up by the plaintiff-Club that the entire extent of Acs. 7.07 guntas is in their possession and enjoyment. Even the lesser extent as per PW1 is not proved. In fact, there is no proof at all of the extent of land or of its clear possession. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is cited earlier makes it very clear that the burden always lies on the plaintiff-Club to prove its case in a suit for declaration of title.
Para No. 23 In the opinion of this Court, the Plaintiff-Club has failed to prove its case. The findings of the lower court on issue Nos.2 and 6 are correct. The lower Court rightly notices that there is no documentary evidence to show that the plaintiff was enjoying the entire extent of land. The mutation of the names and the claim and possession of the club over the entire extent with boundaries is not established. The existence of open land surrounding the club-buildings has not been proved. Therefore, this Court concurs with the findings of the lower Court on issue Nos.2 and 6.
45
Para No. 29 In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff-Club has failed to prove its title and possession to the property. There is no clarity about the actual identity of the property on the ground.
Para No. 30 For all the reasons, this Court holds that there are no merits in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 21-11-1994 passed by the Sub-ordinate Judge, Nalgonda in OS No.62 of 1988 are confirmed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
56The learned counsel for the defendant, relied upon a decision reported in
2019 (6) ALD 377 (TS)
Between J.P. Estate and Others
Vs. Mecca Madina Allauddin Waqf, Secunderabad and Others.
Wherein it was held by the lordship at para no.125 and 126 of its
Judgment.
Para No. 125 In my opinion, Col. Waheed Khan’s possession of the plaint schedule property from late 1950s till filing of OS No. 449 of 1976, and such possession after he denied title of the 1 st respondent/plaintiff till his death on 28-10-1980, and thereafter the possession of his legal heirs till October, 1996, because of its open, hostile and continuous nature for a period more than 12 years, conferred title on the legal heirs of Col. Waheed Kahn by way of adverse possession. So respondents 2 to 8 were entitled to convey valid title to petitioners 2 to 6 by Exs B1 to B6.
Para No. 126 Thus the title, if any, of the 1 st respondent in relation to the plaint schedule property stood extinguished. Accordingly this point is answered hold that Col. Waheed Khan’s legal heirs/respondent Nos. 2 to 8 acquired title by adverse possession against the 1 st respondent.
55.I have carefully gone through the case laws submitted by the learned counsels on both sides, the facts and circumstances of cases submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are entirely different.
46
56.The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that, even as per the averments of the plaint itself, the plaintiff is admitting the possession of the 1st defendant and enjoyment over the schedule property. But, she did not specifically pleaded at what point of time the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff from schedule property except mentioned as one year prior to the 13-07-2006. He further submitted that, except Exs A1 and A2, the plaintiff did not file any document to show either the possession of herself, or the possession of her brother PW2 or the possession of her father over the schedule property till the one year prior to 13-07-2006. He further submitted as per the admissions made by the plaintiff as PW1, the 1st defendant is in the possession of schedule property, even prior to 1984, so, the question of dispossession of the plaintiff one year prior to the date 13-07-2006 does not arise. The plaintiff is not entitle for relief of recovery of possession.
57.Admittedly, except Exs A1 and A2, the plaintiff have not filed any other document to show the possession of the either herself, her brother PW2, or the possession of her father over the schedule property till the date of alleged dispossession. More over, during the course of evidence of the plaintiff as PW1 in her cross examination it is admitted by her that, she have not filed any document to show her possession over the schedule property till the date of alleged encroachment of D1, further it is stated by her that, she do not know whether she got mentioned in the plaint that on a particular day D1 came and encroached the schedule property unauthorizedly, it is further stated by her that, she have not got issued any legal notice to D1 for his alleged encroachment into schedule property, further she have not filed any criminal case against the 1st defendant for the alleged encroachment of the suit schedule property. It is further stated by her that, she is nothing to do with the house property of the 1st defendant constructed by him in the property purchased by him, it is further 47 stated that she know that D1 is using disputed property as front yard by opening a door way towards northern side of his house, but her plea is D1 encroached the said site without any title. It is further stated by her that, D1 let his house to the postal department for rent, further stated that, she know that, postal authorities has taken the house of D1 for rent, and run the post office from 1985 to 1990 during that period, the posted employees, as well as public used the disputed property for their ingress and egress, so, from this part of cross examination of plaintiff as PW1, D1 is in the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, even prior to the 1985. So, the dispossession of the plaintiff from the schedule property one year prior to the 13-07-2006 does not arise, which is the cause of action for filing the present suit.
58.The specific contention of the plaintiff is that, as per the documents filed by the defendant itself i.e. Exs B1 to B4, is disclosing that, the schedule property is the property of father of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is no other than the daughter of Vunudurthi Seetha Ramayya Panthulu, further during the course of family arrangements schedule property devolved on PW2 Vunudurthi Narasinga
Rao, who is the son of Seetha Ramayya Panthulu, thereafter, PW2 gifted the schedule property to the plaintiff, thereby plaintiff became absolute owner for the schedule property. On the other hand the specific contention of the defendants is that, the property in the possession of the 1st defendant i.e., disputed property is not the property claiming by the plaintiff, further the property in the possession of the 1st defendant was never called as “Meesalavari Doddi, Sathram
Khamdam”. Though it is the plea of the plaintiff is that, the schedule property is
Sathram Khandam, Meesalavari Doodi, the defendant No.1 occupied the same, except Ex A1 and A2 , no other document is filed to establish the said fact.
Basing on Exs A1 and A2 and Exs B1 to B4, it cannot be said that, the property in the possession of the 1st defendant is the property mentioned in the plaint 48 schedule. Since beginning itself, the 1st defendant is denying that, the property in the possession of D1 was never called as Sathram Khandam, Meesalavari
Doddi, but the plaintiff did not choose to appointment of any Advocate
Commissioner to localize the physical features of the disputed property and to establish that, the property in the possession of 1st defendant is Sathram
Khandam, Meesalavari Doddi as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no explanation from the plaintiff in this aspect. Admittedly, plaintiff have not filed any document to show her possession over the schedule property till the date of the alleged encroachment and dispossession, and there is no explanation from the plaintiff in this aspect. Admittedly, as per the cross examination of the plaintiff as
PW1, the 1st defendant is in the possession and enjoyment of the disputed property even prior to the 1984, so, under these circumstances, basing on the evidence of PW1, Exs A1 and A2 and case law submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff it cannot be said that, there is a proper cause of action for filing the suit and it cannot be said the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of recovery of possession. Accordingly, these two issues were answered.
59.ISSUE NO.2
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for past and future mesne profits as prayed for?
In view of my discussion, in respect of Issue no. 1, and Issue no. 3, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of recovery of possession, so, the plaintiff is not entitle for any past and future mesne profits. Accordingly, this issue was answered.
60.ISSUE NO. 5
To what relief?
In view of the discussion, in respect of Issues no. 1 to 4, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
49
61.In the result, the suit is dismissed. However, in view of facts of the case, no order as to costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Typist and pronounced by me in open court on this 30th day of December, 2019.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC)
ANAKAPALLE
Appendix of evidence
No. of witnesses examined for
Plaintiffs: Defendants: PW1: Gompa SeethammaDW1: Gorli Perunaidu PW2: Unudurthi Appala Narasinga RaoDW2: Kolli Ramakrishna DW3: Geddam Suryanarayana
No. of exhibits marked for
Plaintiff:
Ex A1 is the registration extract of gift deed executed by V. Appalanarasingarao in favour of Gompa Seethamma, dated 06-09-1984.
Ex A2 is the registered sale deed executed by Sri. Dantla Venkata Subba Rao in favour of V. Seetharamayya Panthulu, dated 15-09-1947.
Defendants:
Ex B1 is the registered sale deed, dated 19-12-1977 vide document no. 4962/1977 of S.R.O. Anakapalle.
Ex B2 is the registered mortgage deed, dated 16-02-1981 vide document no.879/1981 of S.R.O. Visakhapatnam.
Ex B3 is the registered extension of mortgage deed, dated 05-03-1983 vide document no.2495/1983 of S.R.O. Visakhapatnam.
Ex B4 is the discharge of mortgage deed, dated 22-04-1999.
Ex B5 is the certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 12-03-1990 vide document no. 396/1990 of S.R.O. Sabbavaram.
Ex B6 is the approved plan stands in the name of 1st defendant.
PSCJ / AKP FAC ASCJ /AKP (FTC) 50
Date of presentation:16-07-2007 Date of filing: 28-09-2007
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT ANAKAPALLE
(FAST TRACK COURT)
Present Sri S. SRINIVASA RAO
Principal Senior Civil Judge
FAC Addl. Senior Civil Judge (FTC) Anakapalle
Monday, this the 30th day of December, 2019
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 206 / 2007
Between:
Gompa Seethamma, W/o Seetha Ramam, Hindu, Housewife, aged 65 years, R/o Sabbavaram, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
... Plaintiff.
And:
1.Gorle Peru Naidu, S/o Satyam, aged 63 years, Cultivation, Sabbavaram, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Mahalakshmi, W/o Gorle Peru Naidu (wife of 1st Defendant), aged 55 years, rest -do-.
3. Gorle Pydam Naidu, S/o Satyam, aged 40 years, rest do-
4. Gorle Jagam, W/o Gorle Pydam Naidu (wife of 3rd Defendant), aged 35 years, rest -do-.
5. Gorle Krishna, S/o Gorle Pydam Naidu (son of 3rd Defendant), aged 28 years, rest -do-.
6. Gorle Kumar, S/o Gorle Pydam Naidu (son of 3rd Defendant), aged 34 years, rest -do-.
7. Gorle Hima Bindu, W/o Gorle Kumar (wife of 6th defendant), aged 30 years, rest -do-.
8.Gorle Ramanamma, W/o Gorle Krishna (wife of 5th defendant), aged 29 years, rest -do-.
9.Gorle Satya Naidu @ Kalla Satya naidu, S/o Satyam, aged 55 years, rest -do-.
10.Gorle Simhachalam, S/o Satyam, aged 50 years, rest -do-.
...Defendants.
51
The above named plaintiff, has filed the suit, for relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property after ejecting the defendants, their men, there from by removing them their temporary or any type of constructions if any, for past mesne profits of Rs.2,000/- with court rate of interest at the Court rate, for future mesne profits with court rate of interest at the Court rate, and for costs and for other reliefs as the court deems fit. Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.5,40,000/- and a court fee of Rs.7,826/- is paid under Section 29 Article-I(c) of sch.I and Rs.2000/- being the relief of past mesne profits and court fee of Rs.186/- paid thereon u.sec.20, Article Ic, Sch-I of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act. The suit is coming before me for final hearing on 06-12-2019, in the presence of Sri A.V.S. Bhavani Prasad, Advocate, for the plaintiff, and of Sri V.V.Jogayya, and Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, Advocates, for Defendants No.1 to 3, defendants 4 to 10 remained exparte, upon perusing the material, upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth order:-
D E C R E E
1) that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; and
2) that there be no order as to costs.
Note:- A plaint schedule is hereby attached to decree.
Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 30 th day of December, 2019.
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ANAKAPALLE
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFFS : FOR DEFENDANTS: Rs. Ps. Stamp on vakalat 2-00 Stamp on Plaint 9,826-00--No cost memo is filed-- Process charges 200-00 Advocate fees 20,000-00 Typing charges 50-00 writing charges 50-00 ------------------------ Costs certified Rs.30,128-00 ------------------------
PSCJ/AKP NOTE: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed as per rules.
52
1
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC)
AT ANAKAPALLE
Present Sri S. SRINIVASA RAO
Principal Senior Civil Judge
FAC Addl. Senior Civil Judge (FTC) Anakapalle
Friday, this the 06th day of December, 2019
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 04 / 2000
Between:
1.Mudasani Sumanthareddy, S/o Jagan Mohan Reddy, Hindu, aged about 30 years, Business, residing at Visakhapatnam.
2. Kolluru Narasingarao, S/o Bheemalingam, aged about 56 years, Hindu, Cultivation, main Road, Anakapalle (Died)
3. Kolluru Pramodukumar, S/o Narasingarao, aged 42 years, Hindu, residing at D.No. 11-1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle.
4. Ditto. Vinay Kumar S/o do aged 38 years, rest do.
5. Ditto Siva Kumar, S/o do. Aged 32 years, resto do.
6. Perla Namratha, W/o Babjee, aged 43 years, Hindu, House hold duties, residing at 8-12-9, Sita Govindanivas, Anantapalli vari street, Srikakulam.
7. Pasumurthi Videyatha, W/o Seshubabu, aged 37 years, Hindu, Household duties, Residing at care of Sreenivasa Kirana and General Stores, Bandam vari street, Paravathipuram. (3 to 7 plaintiffs are added as per order in I.A. 125/10 dated 21-09-2010.)
... Plaintiffs
And:
1.Buddha Mahalaxmamma, S/o late Jaggayya, aged about 70 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
2. Buddha Jagadeeswararao, S/o late Jaggayya, aged about 45 years, rest do.
3. Good Sheppered Education Society, represented by A. Vinayanand, S/o not known, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Principal, residing at near Sri Satyanarayana swamy vari temple, Sunkarmetta, Anakapalle.
4. Sri Ravi Enterprises, represented by its proprietor, Kadarisetty Gurumurthy, S/o Kasi Viswanadham, aged about 30 years, Pappula veedhi, Anakapalle.
2
5. Buddha Jaganatha Nagesh, S/o Jagadeswararao, aged about 25 years, Hindu, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle. (5 th defendant is added as per order in I.A. 396/01, dated 07-07-2003)
6. Yellapu Umamaheswari, W/o Yellapu Jaya Prakasa Rao, Hindu, aged 52 years, Household duties, residing at Anakapalle. (6 th defendant added as per order in I.A. 119/06, dated 04-06-2008)
7. Yellapu Jaya Prakasa Rao, S/o late Venkateswarulu, aged 56 years, Household duties, residing at Anakapalle (7 th defendant added as per order in I.A. 120/06, dated 04-06-2008)
...Defendants.
The suit is coming before me for final hearing on 06-11-2019, in the presence of Sri M.S.S. Gowri Shankar, Advocate, for the plaintiffs, and of
Sri B. Rama Rao, Advocate, for Defendant No.4, Sri S.D.J.R. Advocate, for the Defendant No.6 and Defendant No.7, Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and D5 are remained Exparte, Defendant No.1 died, upon perusing the material, upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following::
J U D G E M E N T
The above named plaintiff 1 and 2 have filed the suit for relief of specific performance of sale agreement, dated 21-01-1990, directing the defendants 1 and 2 to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, in respect of the plaint schedule property and get the same registered within the period that may be prescribed by the Honourable Court, if they fail to do so, then the
Honourable Court may be pleased to execute necessary sale deed and get it
registered the same at the plaintiffs expenses, and to direct the defendants to put the plaintiffs in possession of the suit schedule properties, alternatively, if for any reasons the Court comes to the conclusion that the relief of specific performance cannot be granted for refund the sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- by the defendants to the plaintiffs with interest @ 24% per annum, and for costs, and for other reliefs as may be deems to be fit.
2.As per the averments of plaint the case of plaintiffs in brief.
3
Defendants 1 and 2 are the absolute owners for the schedule property.
Defendants 1 and 2 agreed to sell away their land and house property i.e., schedule property for a valuable consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-, and received a advance of Rs.3,00,000/-, towards part of sale consideration and executed an agreement of sale, on 21-01-1990. Further the 1st defendant got the schedule property through her husband as he is sole heir and also as per the provisions of
Hindu Succession Act. The 2nd defendant is the fostered son of the 1st defendant.
2nd defendant is managing the properties on behalf of the 1st defendant. Further defendants 1 and 2 directed the plaintiffs in the said agreement of sale that, the balance of Rs.1,00,000/- be paid to the 1st defendants daughter in law namely
Jayalakshmi, and her grand son Jaganadha Nagesh, equally i.e., Rs.50,000/- each. Further as per the terms of the agreement the defendants under took to execute registered sale deed within 6 months after disposal of the suit
O.S.53/1989 on the file of the Honourable Court which was filed by the
1st defendant for declaration of her title, and possession, or as and when demanded by the plaintiffs at the expenses of the plaintiffs. Further, defendants under took to put the plaintiffs in possession of the properties after they obtained possession of the said property through Court. Further if for any reason the 1st defendant cannot prosecute the said suit, the plaintiffs were given power to prosecute the same by stepping into her as co-plaintiffs for the enforcement of the relief claimed by her in that suit in respect of the plaint schedule properties.
3.Further case of the plaintiffs is that as per the directions in the agreement, the plaintiffs paid Rs.25,000/- on 10-01-1993, another Rs.25,000/- on 05-01-1996, to the 1st defendant daughter in law namely Jayalakshmi. Further, plaintiffs paid Rs.50,000/- on 01-01-1998 to the grand son of 1st defendant namely Jaganadha Nagesh. The plaintiffs obtained endorsement on the reverse of the sale agreement that, thus plaintiffs paid away the entire sale consideration 4 of Rs.4,00,000/-, and no amount is due to the defendants 1 and 2. Further, the plaintiffs demanded the defendants 1 and 2 to execute registered sale deed with terms of sale agreement, dated 21-01-1990. Defendants are postponing the same, the plaintiff got issued registered lawyer’s notice, dated 05-08-1998, to the defendants. The defendants received the same and sent a reply requesting time for execution of the registered sale deed. Defendants are bounded to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs. The further case of the plaintiffs is that, while things stood thus, the 1st defendant in collusion with the 1st defendant in
O.S.58/1989, to defeat the claims of the plaintiffs, filed a memo in that suit for
withdrawing the same. After coming to know the said fact the plaintiffs filed petition I.A. 530/1999 in O.S. 53/1989, to implead them as parties to the suit to protect their interest, and the said application is pending for enquiry. Further the plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform their part of contract and willing to obtain registered sale deed at their expenses in terms of the sale agreement.
Further, defendants 3 and 4 are added as parties to the suit, since they are in possession of Item No. 1 of plaint schedule properties. Further 5th defendant is in the possession of Item No. 2 of the plaint schedule, as the plaintiffs claimed possession of the suit schedule properties. As such, as there is no other go the plaintiffs filed the suit.
4.In view of the orders in IA 125/2010 dated 21-09-2010, plaintiffs 3 to 7 are added as parties to the suit.
5.In view of the order in IA.396/2001, dated 07-07-2003, 5th defendant was brought on record. As per Orders in IA.19/2006, dated 04-06-2008, 6th defendant was brought on record. In view of the orders in IA.120/2006, dated 04-06-2008, the 7th defendant was brought on record.
6.4th defendant filed his written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint. As per the written statement filed by D4, the 5 specific case of the 4th defendant is, suit is not properly presented, so it is liable for dismissal. The 1st defendant had sold away the 2nd Item of plaint schedule property to one Yellapu Prakash Rao, under registered sale deed. The said
Yellapub Prakasa Rao, is the son in law of the 1st defendant. So, there is no possibility to the plaintiffs to purchase the 2nd Item of plaint schedule property from the 1st defendant again. 4th defendant has been paying the rents to the said
Yellapu Prakasa Rao, since the date of execution of the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of Yellapu Prakasa Rao. 4th defendant is not having knowledge about O.S. 53/1989 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Anakapalle. 4th defendant think, that the plaintiffs concocted the alleged agreement of sale, because the 1st defendant never sold any property to anybody except the 2nd item of plaint schedule property. The 4th defendant saw the registered sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of Sri Yellapu
Prakasa Rao. Suit is barred by limitation. Suit is filed with a view to harass the 4th defendant, so the plaintiffs are liable to pay exemplary costs to the 4th defendant.
The cause of action stated in the plaint is neither correct or tenable under law submitted to dismiss the suit with costs.
7.Defendants 6 and 7 filed their common written statement denying material allegations made in the plaint. The specific case of defendants 6 and 7 is that, the defendants 1 and 2 never executed any agreement of sale, and they never received any advance consideration, or any other payment of consideration from the plaintiffs. Defendants 1 and 2 have no right, title and possession what so ever in respect of schedule property. So, they have no right to execute alleged agreement. Even, if there may be any such agreement, it will not create any right, valid title on the plaintiffs. The alleged agreement and alleged part payment endorsements are created for the purpose of the suit by the 2nd defendant in collusion with the plaintiffs.
6
8.The further case of defendants 6 and 7 is that, one Buddha
Jaggayya, S./o Appanna married one Mahalakshmma. Through her Jagayya has not begot any issues. As said Jaggayya had no issues of his own, he fostered the 2nd defendant who is no other than his younger brother’s son. So, also the said
Jagayya and Mahalashmamma have fostered the 6th defendant as their fostered daughter who is no other than co son-in-law’s daughter of Jagayya. Further, the said Jagayya, Mahalakshmamma, 2nd defendant and 6th defendant are all used to live together jointly as members of Hindu Joint Family governed by Mithakshara
School of Hindu Law in her house bearing No. 17-1-1 situated at Satakampattu
Veedhi, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle. The said Jagayya, out his self erections used to acquire properties. In that process said Jagayya acquired landed property of an extent of 65 cents of Yeti-avathalakandam situated within the limits of
Anakapalle Municipality, under a registered sale deed, dated 21-04-1952, having purchased from Pentakota Somesh Naidu, S/o Kannayya of Anakapalle.
9.Further, case of D6 and D7 is that, subsequently, Jagayya, also purchased Ac 1.00 cents of land from Peela Appalanaidu, and others, under registered sale deed, dated 30-05-1954. The said Jagayya, also purchased Ac 0.98 cents of wet land situated in Anakapalle, under registered sale deed, dated 21-03-1956, from Buddha Gavaramma W/o Chinnayyagari Appalanaidu, and others, in respect of the properties covered under the above registered sale deeds dated 21-04-1952, 30-05-1954, 21-03-1956, late Jagayya, executed a registered Gift Settlement deed, dated 28-09-1960, by giving life estate to be enjoyed in favour of his wife Mahalakshmamma, 2nd defendant and 6th defendant with a condition that, they should enjoy the property during their life time without right of alienation, and that after their demise, they shall be devolved upon the children if any that will be born to the 2nd defendant and 6th defendant with absolute rights, subsequently, the said Jaggayya, also purchased Ac 1.48 7 3/4cents situated in Anakapalle, under a registered sale deed, dated 06-08-1962 from Maddala Veeraswamy and others.
10.Further, case of D6 and D7 is that, said Jagayya, also purchased a titled room (Kottu) along with an Antiroom and Verandah under a registered sale deed, dated 27-12-1960, from Sreedharala Bullinookaraju, and others. In respect of the properties covered under the above two sale deeds, dated 27-12-1960, and 06-08-1962, the said Jaggayya, executed a registered gift settlement deed,
dated 21-05-1964, in favour of 6th defendant. Immediately thereafter, the 6th
defendant had accepted the gift, and since then she became absolute owner of the properties covered under the said Gift, and thus, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Likewise, the said Jaggayya, and one Konathala
Jagga Rao, son of Jagannadham, have together purchased some tiled room (Kottu) situated in Bandigadi Veedhi, Anakapalle, from Dimili Sanyasi, under a registered sale deed, dated 06-10-1960, on the same day itself the said two persons also purchased another tiled room (Kottu) from Draksarapu Krishna
Murthy, and others.
11.Further, case of D6 and D7 is that, said Jagayya, also executed a registered gift settlement deed, dated 21-05-1964, in respect of his share of property covered under the above said two sale deeds in favour of the 2nd defendant. The said Jaggayya, for the rest of all his properties had executed a registered Will dated 22-05-1964, in a sound and disposing state of mind in favour of his wife Mahalakshmamma, 2nd defendant and 6th defendant. As per the recitals of the said Will all the movable properties of Jaggayya, shall go to his wife
Mahalakshmamma, with absolute rights, and the immovable properties shall be enjoyed by his wife Mahalakshmamma, during her life time without right of alienation, and thereafter they shall devolve on the 2nd defendant and 6th defendant with absolute equal rights.
8
12.Further, case of D6 and D7 is that, while so, the said Jaggayya, breathed his lost on 04-05-1969, by the date of which he was possessing and owning the following immovable properties apart from movable properties.
1) A shop room situated in Balajiraopeta, Anakapalle purchased by Jaggayya, under a registered sale deed, dated 22-12-1962, from Bonda Subba Raju, and others. 2) House bearing D.No.17-1-1 consisting of three stories in the front side and four stories at the rear side and both of them separated by big hall situated in
Sathakampattu Veedhi, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle. 3) House site with stone foundation measuring Ac.0.06 1/2 cents purchased by Jaggayya, under registered sale deed, dated 18-04-1964, situated in Pendurthi village, and
Mandal, purchased from Gorle Peda Simhachalam, and others. 4) Land of Ac 0.50 cents covered by total extent of Ac 1.00 cents situated in Yeti Avathala
Khandam, Anakapalle, purchased under registered sale deed, dated 22-08-1955, from Tammana Gangaraju, S/o Peda nookayya. 5) Land of Ac 0.50 cents covered by total extent of Ac 1.00 cents situated at Yeti Avathala Khandam,
Anakapalle, purchased by Jaggayya, under registered sale deed, dated 22.08.1955, from Thammana Subba Raju, and others. 6) Wet land of an extent of
Ac 2.12 1/2 cents in a total extent of Ac 4.25 cents together with stone foundation and motor shed purchased by Jaggayya, under registered sale deed, dated 30.09.1967, from Konathala Nookaraju, and others, which is situated in
Avakhandam of Anakapalle. 7) Ac 0.50 cents of land situated in Avakhandam,
Anakapalle, purchased from Buddha Pydamma, wife of Vissanna, by Jaggayya.
13.Further, case of D6 and D7 is that, immediately after death of
Jaggayya, during the year 1969 itself, the 2nd defendant and 6th defendant partitioned all the properties of Jaggayya, wherein the properties described against Nos 2 to 5 shown above fell to the share of 2nd defendant, and the properties described against Nos.1,6 and 7 shown above fell to the share of 6th 9 defendant. Their further case is that, apart from the above said properties, the 2nd defendant also had taken the properties covered under registered sale deeds
dated 21-04-1952, 30-05-1954 and 21-03-1956 and also Ac 0.51 cents of the
personal property which was purchased by 6th defendant from Malla Ramunaidu under registered document No.154/67 towards his share in the above said partition. These defendants further submit that despite partitioning all the properties unequally, but, the 2nd defendant taking advantage of helplessness and innocence of the 6th defendant, had taken the above mentioned properties towards his share which is lion share, giving only meager share to the 6th defendant in the said partition. Having no other go to do, 6th defendant had to satisfy with the above meager properties.
14.Further case of D6 and D7 is that, thus, after the above said partition, the 2nd defendant and 6th defendant have been enjoying their respective properties which were fell to their respective shares. While so, on 05-06-1975, the 2nd defendant, 6th defendant got executed a Deed of Memorandum of earlier partition (Yadasthu). Therefore, since 1969 itself, the 6th defendant as well as the 2nd defendant have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective share of properties. As the properties that were fell to the 6th defendant are located within the Anakapalle Municipal limits, the S.Nos of the said properties are converted as Town Survey Numbers and Government, having recognized the right, title possession. The 7th defendant accepted the said gift and took possession of properties covered there under and since then he has been enjoying the same with absolute rights by paying municipal taxes to
Municipality, Anakapalle. After execution of above said gift deed in favour of 7th defendant, the tenants of 1st defendant i.e., the 4th defendant Ravi Trading
Company represented by its proprietor, K. Gurumurthy, and one Yellapu
Kondalarao vacated the premises and they handed over the possession thereof 10 to 7th defendant and thus, 7th defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property covered under the said gift deed with absolute rights.
15.Further case of D6 and D7 is that, thus, the defendants 6 and 7 became absolute owners of items 1 and 2 of schedule properties respectively and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same to the knowledge of one and all including the 2nd defendant and plaintiffs. Further as the 2nd defendant could not achieve his illegal object of grabbing the properties of defendants 6 and 7 by filling O.S. 53/1989, as such the 2nd defendant got created and fabricated the alleged suit agreement of sale fraudulently in favour of the plaintiffs collusively that as if the same was executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs with a sinister motive to grab the properties of the defendants 6 and 7. Having scented the foul intention of 2nd defendant, and the plaintiffs and also about their collusive nature, the defendants 6 and 7 filed petition under Order 10 Rule 1 and got themselves impleaded as defendants 6 and 7 to the suit.
16.Further case of D6 and D7 is that, the alleged suit agreement of sale is a sham, nominal, collusive and fraudulent document, brought in to existence collusively by plaintiffs and 2nd defendant to defeat the legitimate rights of defendants 6 and 7 over the schedule property. Therefore, the alleged suit agreement of sale same is a sham, nominal and collusive and fraudulent document and as such it is not true, valid and binding on the defendants 6 and 7.
The alleged part payment endorsements are also created endorsements, which are created to give a color of reality that an agreement was executed and that part payments were made there under in order to make believe one and all.
Hence, alleged part payment endorsements are also created for the purpose of the suit to have a wrongful gain. That apart a look through those part payment endorsements shows that they are created collusively, because, the alleged executants of the alleged part payment endorsements do not have any right, title 11 possession or enjoyment to schedule property, nor do they have any nexus to the alleged suit transaction. Therefore, the alleged suit agreement of sale, and the alleged part payment endorsements do not confer or create any enforceable legal rights to the plaintiffs for the schedule property nor defendants 6 and 7 have any liability under the alleged agreement of sale and the part payment endorsements thereof, and enjoyment of the share of properties of the 6th defendant gave a new pattadar and Title deed passbooks. Likewise, the 2nd defendant was also given pass books in respect of his share of properties and he has been dealing with his properties by alienating some of them.
17.Further case of D6 and D7 is that, while so, while enjoying her properties, the 6th defendant and one Buddha Appalanaidu leased out a part of
Item-1 of the property in favour of D.3 and its President A. Vinayanand, under a registered sale deed dated 01-04-1987. Thus, half of the Item-1 of the plaint schedule is the exclusive and absolute property of the 6th defendant who got the same in the above said partition during the year 1969 that took place between her and 2nd defendant and since then 6th defendant has been enjoying the Item-1 of the schedule property with absolute rights by paying taxes to the Government and the said fact is well within the knowledge of one and all including the 2nd defendant and others. Therefore, the either the 2nd defendant or anybody except the 6th defendant have no right over Item-1 of the plaint schedule property.
Further even though the 2nd defendant had taken a lion share in the above partition apart from the personal and separate property of the 6th defendant and no satisfied with the same, got filed one fraudulent suit O.S.53/1989, through his fostered mother i.e., 1st defendant on the file of this honourable Court against the 6th defendant. Not only that while Mahalakshmamma, i.e., 1st defendant was staying with the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant grabbed 50 tulas of gold of 1st defendant Mahalakshmamma, and necked her out of his house. Having no other 12 go to do she took shelter in the house of the defendants 6 and 7, and thereafter the said 1st defendant Mahalakshmamma, on coming to know about the fraud that was committed by the plaintiff in getting the above suit filed through her, and upon realizing herself, the said 1st defendant Mahalakshmamma, had withdrawn O.S.
53/1989. The 2nd defendant did not contest the above suit and he himself remained exparte therein.
18.Further case of D6 and D7 is that thereafter, 1st defendant,
Mahalakshmamma, while was in a sound disposing state of mind executed a registered Will, dated 27-03-1999, in respect of all her properties in favour of the 6th defendant. Further more, as 1st defendant had given up her life estate in respect of her properties infavour of the 2nd defendant and 6th defendant by executing an agreement dated 04-06-1975, in a family arrangement and 1st defendant was allotted Item-2 of the plaint schedule property towards her share and for her maintenance etc., subsequently, as 7th defendant who is son in law of 1st defendant Mahalakshmamma, used to look after the welfare of
Mahalakshmamma, in her old days and out of love and affection towards him.
The 1st defendant Mahalakshmamma, executed a registered Gift Settlement deed dated, 27-03-1999 in respect of Item-2 of plaint schedule properties infavour of the 7th defendant.
19.Further case of D6 and D7 is that, the 2nd defendant who has been harassing systematically the defendant 6 and 7, in order to grab their properties to eschew illegal want as he failed to meet his unlawful desire of grabbing properties of the defendants 6 and 7 by filing OS 53/1989 through his mother i.e., first defendant, filed the present suit in collusion with the plaintiffs. There is no cause of action to file the suit, there are no bonafidies in the present suit. This suit is divide of merits and it is barred by limitation. Further, the plaint schedule is not 13 correct, the court fees is paid is also not correct, so, submitted to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
20.Where as, defendant no. 1 died, defendants 2,3 and 5 remained exparte.
21.Basing on the above pleadings, the following Issues were settled for trial.
1) Whether agreement of sale, dated 21-01-1990 is true, valid and binding on the defendants.?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance as prayed for?
3) Whether suit is not maintainable against D4?
4) To what relief?
22.In order to prove their case the 1st plaintiff himself examined as
PW1, the plaintiffs filed evidence affidavit of third party witness as PW2, but the same was eschewed as PW2 died, 2nd plaintiff filed his evidence affidavit as
PW3, but the same was eschewed as died, Plaintiff examined, third party witness
PW4, 5th plaintiff himself examined as PW5, and also examined third party witness as PW6. Plaintiffs got marked Exhibits A1 to A6. Ont he other hand 6th defendant herself examined as DW1, and also examined third party witness
DW2. Defendants got marked Exhibits B1 to B47.
23.Heard, the arguments on both sides.
24.During the course of trial, the 1st plaintiff as PW1 in his evidence affidavit he reiterated the averments of the plaint. Plaintiffs got marked Exhibits
A1 to A6. Ex A1 is the suit document agreement of sale dated 21-01-1990. Ex A2 is the endorsement of part payment of balance sale consideration amount dated 10-01-1993. Ex A3 is the endorsement of part payment of balance sale consideration amount dated 05-01-1996. Ex A4 is the endorsement of part payment of balance sale consideration amount dated 01-01-1998. Ex A5 is the 14 office copy of registered lawyer’s notice dated 05-08-1998. Ex A6 is the registered reply lawyer notice dated 12-08-1998.
25.PW4 Miriyala Venkata Satya Krishna Prasad, who is the third party of the suit proceedings, in his evidence affidavit it is stated he is scribe of a sale agreement executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs. One I.P.R.
Naidu and M.A. Subbarao, are the attestors of the said agreement of sale.
Advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to the defendants 1 and 2 in his presence and in the presence of two attestors. He and the attestors witnessed that, the 1st defendant put his thumb mark, the 2nd defendant subscribed signature on sale agreement. Further, defendants 1 and 2, witnessed while he and attestors subscribed their signatures on the sale agreement. PW5 Kolluru Siva
Kumar, 6th plaintiff in his evidence affidavit, he reiterated the averments of the plaint. PW6 M.V.S. Prasad, who is the third party of the suit proceedings in his evidence in chief stated that one M.V. Subba Rao, is his elder brother, who is no more and further stated Ex A1 contains signature of his brother M.V. Subba Rao,
as 2nd attestor., he is acquainted with signatures of his elder brother M.V. Subba
Rao.
26.On the other hand the 6th defendant as DW1, in his evidence affidavit, he reiterated the averments of her written statement and marked
Exhibits B1 to B47. Ex B1 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 21-04-1952. Ex
B2 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 30-03-1954. Ex B3 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 21-03-1956. Ex B4 is the certified copy of gift deed dated 28- 09-1960. Ex B5 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 06-08-1962. Ex B6 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 27-12-1960. Ex B7 is the certified copy of gift settlement deed dated 21-05-1964. Ex B8 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 06-10-1960. Ex B9 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 06-10-1960. Ex B10 is the certified copyof registered gift deed dated 21-05-1964.
15
Ex B11 is the certified copy of registered Will dated 22-05-1964. Ex B12 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 22-12-1962. Ex B13 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 18-04-1964. Ex B14 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 19-10-1995. Ex B15 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 22-08-1955. Ex B16 is the certified copy of registered sale deed
dated 27-08-1955. Ex B17 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated
01-02-1967. Ex B18 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 30-09-1967. Ex B19 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 30-04-1966. Ex B20 is the certified copy of rythtwary pass book in the name of
Budda Appalanaidu and D6. Ex B21 is the certified copy of pattadar pass book of
D6. Ex B22 is the certified copy of title deed pass book of D6. Ex B23 is the certified copyof land revenue receipt in the name of Budda Appalanaidu and D6
dated 07-03-1982. Ex B24 is the certified copy of I.R. receipt dated 04-03-1982.
Ex B25 is the certified copy of L.R. receipt dated 02-02-2001. Ex B26 is the certified copy of registered lease deed dated 01-04-1987. Ex B27 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 13-06-2000. Ex B28 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 28-06-1999. Ex B29 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 22-06-1999. Ex B30 is the certified copy of property tax receipt
dated 05-07-1999. Ex B31 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 13-
06-2000. Ex B32 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 14-12-2001 of
Budda Appalanaidu. Ex B33 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 14- 12-2001 in the name of Budda Appalanaidu and D6. Ex B34 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 14-12-2001 in the name of D6. Ex B35 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 28-09-2003 in the name of D6. Ex B36 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 06-01-2007. Ex B37 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 16-03-2007. Ex B38 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 16-03-2007. Ex B39 is the certified copy of 16 registered lease deed dated 23-10-1980 executed by D6, D7 and Budda
Appalanaidu. Ex B40 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 10-02- 1995. Ex B41 is the certified copy of Judgment dated 10-04-2000 in O.S. 53/1989 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Anakapalle. Ex B42 is the certified copy of registered Will dated 27-03-1999. Ex B43 is the certified copy of registered relinquishment deed dated 27-03-1999 executed by D1 in favour of D6. Ex B44 is the certified copy of registered gift deed dated 27-03-1999 in favour of D7 executed by D1. Ex B45 is the certified copy of written statement of D1 and D2 in
O.S. 10/2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Anakapalle. Ex B46 is the
certified copy of neat copy of plaint in O.S. 10/2004 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge’s Court, Anakapalle. Ex B47 is the certified copy of issues in O.S. 10/2004
on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Anakapalle. DW2 Malla Dalinaidu who is the third party proceedings in his evidence affidavit he reiterated the case of the
DW1 with regard execution of registered gift settlement deed and relinquishment deed by Budda Mahalakshamamma i.e., Ex B43 and Ex B43 and Ex B44, he is one of the attestors for Ex B42, B43 and B44.
27.ISSUE NO.1
Whether agreement of sale dated 21-01-1990 is true, valid and binding on the defendants.?
As seen from the record, the plea of the plaintiff is that, defendants 1 and 2, are the absolute owners for the schedule property, being absolute owners the defendants 1 and 2 offered to sell the schedule property to the plaintiffs 1 and 2, plaintiffs 1 and 2 agreed to purchase the same for amount of
Rs. 4,00,000/-, defendants 1 and 2 entered into an agreement of sale, dated 21- 01-1990, with the plaintiffs, and received Rs.3,00,000/- as advance sale consideration, the agreement of sale, dated 21-01*-1990 is true and valid and it is binding on the defendants. In order to substantiate the same the 1st plaintiff 17 himself examined as PW1, he reiterated the averments of the plaint, further, got marked the agreement of sale, dated 21-01-1990, said to have been executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs as Ex A1. Further, in order to prove the execution of Ex A1, the plaintiffs also examined the scribe of Ex A1 as PW4 and the daughter of the 2nd plaintiff who was brought on record as 5th plaintiff due to the death of 2nd plaintiff was examined as PW5. In the evidence of PW4 and
PW5 they categorically deposed about the execution of Ex A1 by the defendants 1 and 2. So far as cross examination of PW1, PW4 and PW5 is concern, nothing material is could be elicited to show that Ex A1 was not executed by d1 and D2.
More over, the one of the executant of Ex A1 i.e., 1st defendant have died, where as the 2nd executant of Ex A1 i.e., 2nd defendant have remained exparte, the plea of the other defendants is only that, the defendants 1 and 2 never executed Ex
A1, so, taking the evidence of PW1, PW4, PW5 and Ex A1 into consideration, it can be said that, the plaintiffs able to establish execution of Ex A1, and Ex A1 is true and valid. Accordingly, this issue was answered.
28.ISSUE NO.2
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance as prayed for?
The specific plea of the plaintiffs is that, being the absolute owners of the schedule property, the defendants 1 and 2 executed Ex A1. Further, in spite of readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs, the defendants 1 and 2 did not come forward to perform their part of contract. Their further plea is at the time of agreement itself, they paid advance sale consideration of RS.3,00,000/- to defendants 1 and 2, further as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, as per the instructions of the 1st defendant, they paid Rs.50,000/- to the wife of 2nd defendant, who is the daughter in law of the 1st defendant, they also paid
Rs.50,000/- to the son of the 2nd defendant, namely Jagannadha Nagesu, who is 18 the grand son of 1st defendant, they totally paid Rs.4,00,000/-, the entire sale consideration amount. Further, in spite of their demands defendants 1 and 2 did not come forward to perform the agreement of sale, further as per the terms of the agreement for sale, the defendants 1 & 2 under took to execute registered sale deed within six months after disposal of the suit O.S.53/1989 on the file of the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge’s Court, which was filed by the 1st defendant for declaration of her right, title and possession or as and when demanded by the plaintiffs. Their further plea is when the defendants are postponing the matter, the plaintiffs got issued registered lawyer’s notice, dated 05-08-1998, the defendants 1 and 2 received the same and sent reply, requesting time for execution of registered sale deed, but they failed to comply the same. Further, while so, the 1st defendant in collusion with the the defendants in OS 53/1989, to defeat the claim of the plaintiffs herein, filed a memo in that suit for withdrawing the same. So, after coming to know the said facts, the plaintiffs filed an application vide
I.A.513/1999 in O.S. 53/1989 to implead them as parties to the suit to protect their interest, and said application is pending for enquiry. Their further plea is, in spite of their ready and willingness to perform their part of contract, as defendants 1 and 2 did not come forward to perform their part of contract, the plaintiffs filed the suit.
29.Whereas, the specif contention of the defendants 6 and 7 is that, either the 1st defendants or 2nd defendant are not the absolute owners for the schedule property, they never had any right and title over the schedule property.
At the instance of the 2nd defendant herein, the 1st defendant herein filed OS 53/1989 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, for declaration of her right, title, possession over the schedule property. But, they failed to succeed the same, so, the 2nd defendant in collusion with the plaintiffs herein got filed the present suit, so, the plaintiffs are not entitled for relief of specific performance of sale 19 agreement Ex A1. As seen from the recitals of Ex A1 itself is disclosing that, by the date of Ex A1 defendants 1 and 2 are not having any right and title over the schedule property, because by the date of Ex A1 itself, OS 53/1989 is pending which was filed by 1st defendant herein for declaration of her right and title and possession over the schedule property, so, under these circumstances it cannot be said that, defendants 1 and 2 had executed Ex A1 with absolute right and title over the schedule property. The plea of the plaintiff as per the evidence of the 1st plaintiff as PW1 is that, at the time of ex A1 they do not know about the disputes in respect of schedule properties, further defendants 1 and 2 informed them that they are the absolute owners for the schedule property. His further plea is, subsequently, the defendants 1 & 2 informed to the plaintiffs about the suit in respect of schedule property and issued an under taking letter that, they will execute the registered sale deed after disposal of the civil suit OS 53/1989, but, admittedly no such letter was placed before this court by the plaintiffs and there is no explanation in this aspect, more over, this plea of PW1 is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the Ex A1. Why because in recitals of Ex A1 itself it is mentioned about the pendency of the proceedings in OS 53/1989. Further, there is no clinching evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs to say whether OS 53/1989 was decreed in favour of the 1st defendant by declaring her right and title over the schedule property, there is no evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs to show that defendants 1 and 2 are having exclusive right and title over the schedule property. So, without having right and title defendants 1 and 2 cannot execute any registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs for the schedule property.
30.Whereas, the specific plea of the defendants 6 and 7 is that, one
Buddha Jaggayya, is husband of Mahalakshmamma, i.e., 1st defendant herein, as they begot no issues, they fostered the 2nd defendant as son and also fostered the 6th defendant as their daughter, so, the said Jaggayya, Mahalakshamma, 2nd 20 defendant and 6th defendant are used to live together jointly as a members of
Hindu Joint Family governed by Mithaskhara School of Hindu Law, in a house bearing door NO. 17-1-1, situated at Satakampattu Veedhi, Gavarapalem,
Anakapalle. The said Jaggayya out of his self exertions used to acquire the properties, in that process the said Jaggayya acquired landed property of an extent of Ac 0.65 cents of Yeti Avarthala Kandam, situated within the limits of
Anakapalle Municipality under registered sale deed, dated 21-04-1952, an extent of Ac 1.00 cents of land from Peela Appalanaidu, and others under registered sale deed, dated 30-05-1954, an extent of Ac 0.98 cents of wet land situated in
Anakapalle under registered sale deed, dated 21-03-1956 from Buddaha
Gavaramma and others. In respect of those properties the said Jaggayya executed a registered Gift Settlement deed, dated 28-09-1960 by giving life estate to be enjoyed in favour of his wife I.e, D1, 2nd defendant and 6th defendant with a condition that, they should enjoy the property during their life time without right of alienation and that, after their demise, it shall be devolved upon the children if any that will be born to the 2nd defendant and 6th defendant with absolute rights. Subsequently, the said Jaggayya, also purchased Ac 1.48 ¾ cents situated at Anakapalle under registered sale deed, dated 06-08-1962 from
Maddala Veera Swamy, said Jaggayya, also purchased a tiled room along with an antiroom and varandah under registered sale deed, dated 27-12-1960 from
Sridarala Bulli Nookaraju, and others, in respect of those properties the said
Jaggayya, executed a registered Gift Settlement Deed, dated 21-05-1964 in favour of the 6th defendant, immediately, the 6th defendant had accepted the gift and since then she became absolute owner of the properties covered under the said Gift Deed. Like wise, the said Jaggayya, and One Konathala Jaggarao, have together purchased some tiled room situated in Bandigadi veedhi, Anakapalle from Demili Sanaysi, under a registered sale deed, dated 06-10-1960, on the 21 same day itself the said two persons also purchased tiled room from
Draksharapu Krishna Murthy, and others, the said Jaggayya, also executed a
Registered Gift settlement deed, dated 21-05-1964, in respect of his share of property covered under the above said two sale deeds in favour of the 2nd defendant. Further, the said Jaggayya, for the rest of all his properties had executed a registered Will dated 22-05-1964 in a sound and disposing state of mind in favour of his wife Mahalakshmamma (D1), 2nd defendant and 6th defendant. As per the recitals of the said Will, all the movable properties of
Jaggayya shall go to his wife Mahalakshmamma, (D1) with absolute rights, and the immovable properties shall be enjoyed by his wife Mahalakshmamma, (D1) during her life time without right of alienation, and thereafter they shall devolve on the 2nd defendant and 6th defendant with absolute equal rights. While so, the said
Jaggayya, died interstate on 04-05-1969.
31.Their further case is, immediately, after death of Jaggayya, during the year 1969 itself, the 2nd defendant and 6th defendant partitioned all the properties of Jaggayya, in the said partition the 2nd defendant also had taken the properties covered under sale deeds dated 21-04-1952, 30-05-1954 and 21-03- 1956 and also an extent of Ac 0.51 cents of personal property which was purchased by the D6. Further, despite partitioning all the properties unequally, the 2nd defendant taking advantage of helplessness and innocence of 6th defendant had taken major portion of the properties towards his share, giving only meager share to 6th defendant in the said partition. Thus, after the above said partition,.
2nd defendant and 6th defendant have been enjoying their properties which were fell to respective their shares, while so, on 05-06-1975, the 2nd defendant and 6th defendant got executed a deed of a memorandum of earlier partition. Therefore, since 1969 itself the 6th defendant as well as 2nd defendant have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective shares of their properties.
22
32.Further, even though the 2nd defendant had taken his share of the partition of the properties apart from the personal and separate property of 6th defendant and not satisfy with the same and got filed one Fraudulent suit OS 53/1989 through his fostered mother I.e, 1st defendant against the 6th defendant herein, not only that while Mahalakshmamma, (D1) was staying with 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant grabbed 50 tulas of gold of 1st defendant
Mahalakshmamma, and necked her out from his house, having no other go to do, 1st defendant took shelter in the house of the defendants 6 and 7, and thereafter the 1st defendant on coming to know about the fraud that was committed by the plaintiff in getting the above suit filed through her, and upon realizing herself, the 1st defendant had withdrawn OS 53/1989, the 2nd defendant did not contest the above suit and he himself remained exparte therein to achieve his illegal want, as the 2nd defendant failed meet his unlawful desire of grabbing properties of defendants 6 and 7 by filing OS 53/1989 through the 1st defendant, 2nd defendant got filed the present suit in collusion with the plaintiffs. In order to substantive their contention, 5th defendant herself examined as DW1 and also got marked
Exs B1 to B47 and also examined one of the attestors of the Exs B42 to B44 I.e.,
DW2. Moreover, though it is plea of plaintiffs that, the defendants 1 and 2 are having absolute right and title over the schedule property, being absolute owners only the defendants 1 and 2 executed Ex A1 agreement of sale, but there is no clinching evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs to show that defendants 1and 2 are the absolute owners for the schedule property, further, the recitals of Ex A1 itself is disclosing that, by the date of Ex A1 itself, the dispute is pending in respect of schedule property with regard right and title of the defendants 1 and 2. So, under these circumstances, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of specific performance of sale agreement.
23
33.The further plea of the plaintiffs is that, at the time of Ex A1 itself, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendants 1 and 2 towards advance of sale consideration, further as per the instructions of the 1st defendant, they paid Rs.50,000/- to the wife of 2nd defendant, they also paid Rs.50,000/- to the son of the 2nd defendant, and got marked Ex A2 to A4 the part payment endorsements. On the other hand, the 1st defendant died, the 2nd defendant remained exparte. There is no evidence on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2, to disprove Exs A2 to A4. Further plea of the plaintiffs is that, if for any reason the
Court comes to a conclusion that, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the specific performance of sale agreement, they are entitled for refund of amount paid by them with subsequent interest as alternative relief. As it is already held that, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the specific performance of sale agreement Ex A1, so, they are entitle for the alternative relief of refund of amount. Accordingly, this issue was answered.
34.ISSUE NO.3
Whether suit is not maintainable against D4?
The specific plea of defendant No.4 is that, the suit is not maintainable against him under law. His further plea is, to his knowledge the 1st defendant had sold away Item No. 2 of schedule property to one Yellapu
Prakasarao, under registered sale deed, the said Parakasarao is no other than the son-in-law of 1st defendant. Further, he has been paying rents to the Yellapu
Prakasarao since the date of execution of the said sale deed executed by 1st defendant in favour of Yellapu Prakasarao. Whereas, the plea of the plaintiffs is, as defendants 3 and 4 are in the possession of Item No 1 of the plaint scheude property, defendant no. 5 is in the possession of Item No. 2 of schedule property, further as the plaintiffs are claiming possession also over the suit schedule property, they got added defendant no. 3 to 5. Defendant No.4 is not disputing 24 his possession in respect of the Item No. 1 of the schedule property, but his plea is he is tenant under the Yellapu Prakasarao, so, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that, the suit is not maintainable against D4. Accordingly, this issue was answered.
35.ISSUE NO.4
To what relief?
In view of my discussion, in respect of issues 1 to 3, the suit is liable to be dismissed, so far as, relief of specific performance is concern, the suit is liable to be decreed, so far as, alternative relief of refund of amount is concerned.
36.In the result, the suit is dismissed, so far as, relief of specific performance is concerned, suit is decreed granting alternative relief of refund of amount Rs.4,00,000/- together with subsequent interest there on @ 12 % per annum from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, thereafter, @ 6 % per annum from the date of the decree till the date of the realization against D2 personally, and also against the assets of the deceased 1st defendant lying in the hands of D2 and D6. However, in view of the facts of the case, no order as to costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Typist and pronounced by me in open court on this 06th day of December, 2019.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC)
ANAKAPALLE
Appendix of evidence
No. of witnesses examined for
Plaintiffs: Defendants: PW1: Mudasani SumanthareddyDW1: Yellapu Umamaheswari PW2: Manda Venkata Subbarao (eschewed) DW2: Malla Dalinaidu PW3: Kolluru Narasingarao (eschewed) PW4: Miriyala Venkata Satya Krishna Prasad ….contd..pg.25.
25
PW5: Kolluru Siva Kumar PW6: M.V.S. Prasad.
No. of exhibits marked for
Plaintiff: Ex A1 is the suit document agreement of sale dated 21-01-1990.
Ex A2 is the endorsement of part payment of balance sale consideration amount
dated 10-01-1993.
Ex A3 is the endorsement of part payment of balance sale consideration amount
dated 05-01-1996.
Ex A4 is the endorsement of part payment of balance sale consideration amount
dated 01-01-1998.
Ex A5 is the office copy of registered lawyer’s notice dated 05-08-1998.
Ex A6 is the registered reply lawyer notice dated 12-08-1998.
Defendants: B1 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 21-04-1952.
Ex B2 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 30-03-1954.
Ex B3 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 21-03-1956.
Ex B4 is the certified copy of gift deed dated 28-09-1960.
Ex B5 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 06-08-1962.
Ex B6 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 27-12-1960.
Ex B7 is the certified copy of gift settlement deed dated 21-05-1964.
Ex B8 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 06-10-1960.
Ex B9 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 06-10-1960.
Ex B10 is the certified copy of registered gift deed dated 21-05-1964.
Ex B11 is the certified copy of registered Will dated 22-05-1964.
Ex B12 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 22-12-1962.
Ex B13 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 18-04-1964.
Ex B14 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 19-10-1995.
Ex B15 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 22-08-1955.
Ex B16 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 27-08-1955.
Ex B17 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 01-02-1967.
Ex B18 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 30-09-1967.
Ex B19 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 30-04-1966.
Ex B20 is the certified copy of rythutwary pass book in the name of Budda Appalanaidu and D6.
Ex B21 is the certified copy of pattadar pass book of D6.
26
Ex B22 is the certified copy of title deed pass book of D6.
Ex B23 is the certified copy of land revenue receipt in the name of Budda Appalanaidu and D6 dated 07-03-1982.
Ex B24 is the certified copy of I.R. receipt dated 04-03-1982.
Ex B25 is the certified copy of L.R. receipt dated 02-02-2001.
Ex B26 is the certified copy of registered lease deed dated 01-04-1987.
Ex B27 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 13-06-2000.
Ex B28 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 28-06-1999.
Ex B29 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 22-06-1999.
Ex B30 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 05-07-1999.
Ex B31 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 13-06-2000.
Ex B32 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 14-12-2001 of Budda Appalanaidu.
Ex B33 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 14-12-2001 in the name of Budda Appalanaidu and D6.
Ex B34 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 14-12-2001 in the name of D6.
Ex B35 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 28-09-2003 in the name of D6.
Ex B36 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 06-01-2007.
Ex B37 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 16-03-2007.
Ex B38 is the certified copy of property tax receipt dated 16-03-2007.
Ex B39 is the certified copy of registered lease deed dated 23-10-1980 executed by D6, D7 and Budda Appalanaidu.
Ex B40 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 10-02-1995.
Ex B41 is the certified copy of Judgment dated 10-04-2000 in O.S. 53/1989 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Anakapalle.
Ex B42 is the certified copy of registered Will dated 27-03-1999.
Ex B43 is the certified copy of registered relinquishment deed dated 27-03-1999 executed by D1 in favour of D6.
Ex B44 is the certified copy of registered gift deed dated 27-03-1999 in favour of D7 executed by D1.
Ex B45 is the certified copy of written statement of D1 and D2 in O.S. 10/2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Anakapalle.
Ex B46 is the certified copy of neat copy of plaint in O.S. 10/2004 on the file of Senior
Civil Judge’s Court, Anakapalle.
Ex B47 is the certified copy of issues in O.S. 10/2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Anakapalle.
PSCJ / AKP FAC ASCJ /AKP (FTC) 27
Date of presentation: 01-12-1999 Date of filing:-02-02-2000
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
(FAST TRACK COURT)
Present: Sri S. SRINIVASA RAO,
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Anakapalli (FAC) Addl. Senior Civil Judge/FTC Anakapalli
Friday, this the 06th day of December, 2019
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 04/2000
Between:
1.Mudasani Sumanthareddy, S/o Jagan Mohan Reddy, Hindu, aged about 30 years, Business, residing at Visakhapatnam.
2. Kolluru Narasingarao, S/o Bheemalingam, aged about 56 years, Hindu, Cultivation, main Road, Anakapalle (Died)
3. Kolluru Pramodukumar, S/o Narasingarao, aged 42 years, Hindu, residing at D.No. 11-1-47, Main Road, Anakapalle.
4. Ditto. Vinay Kumar S/o do aged 38 years, rest do.
5. Ditto Siva Kumar, S/o do. Aged 32 years, resto do.
6. Perla Namratha, W/o Babjee, aged 43 years, Hindu, House hold duties, residing at 8-12-9, Sita Govindanivas, Anantapalli vari street, Srikakulam.
7. Pasumurthi Videyatha, W/o Seshubabu, aged 37 years, Hindu, Household duties, Residing at care of Sreenivasa Kirana and General Stores, Bandam vari street, Paravathipuram. (3 to 7 plaintiffs are added as per order in I.A. 125/10 dated 21-09-2010.)
... Plaintiffs
And:
1.Buddha Mahalaxmamma, S/o late Jaggayya, aged about 70 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.
2. Buddha Jagadeeswararao, S/o late Jaggayya, aged about 45 years, rest do.
3. Good Sheppered Education Society, represented by A. Vinayanand, S/o not known, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Principal, residing at near Sri Satyanarayana swamy vari temple, Sunkarmetta, Anakapalle.
28
4. Sri Ravi Enterprises, represented by its proprietor, Kadarisetty Gurumurthy, S/o Kasi Viswanadham, aged about 30 years, Pappula veedhi, Anakapalle.
5. Buddha Jaganatha Nagesh, S/o Jagadeswararao, aged about 25 years, Hindu, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle. (5 th defendant is added as per order in I.A. 396/01, dated 07-07-2003)
6. Yellapu Umamaheswari, W/o Yellapu Jaya Prakasa Rao, Hindu, aged 52 years, Household duties, residing at Anakapalle. (6 th defendant added as per order in I.A. 119/06, dated 04-06-2008)
7. Yellapu Jaya Prakasa Rao, S/o late Venkateswarulu, aged 56 years, Household duties, residing at Anakapalle (7 th defendant added as per order in I.A. 120/06, dated 04-06-2008)
...Defendants.
The above named plaintiff 1 and 2 have filed the suit for relief of specific performance of sale agreement, dated 21-01-1990, directing the defendants 1 and 2 to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, in respect of the plaint schedule property and get the same registered within the period that may be prescribed by the Honourable Court, if they fail to do so, then the
Honourable Court may be pleased to execute necessary sale deed and get it
registered the same at the plaintiffs expenses, and to direct the defendants to put the plaintiffs in possession of the suit schedule properties, alternatively, if for any reasons the Court comes to the conclusion that the relief of specific performance cannot be granted for refund the sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- by the defendants to the plaintiffs with interest @ 24% per annum, and for costs, and for other reliefs as may be deems to be fit.
Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.4,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.6,426/- is paid under Section 39 of schedule- I, Article-I (b & c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.,
The suit is coming before me for final hearing on 06-11-2019, in the presence of Sri M.S.S. Gowri Shankar, Advocate, for the plaintiffs, and of Sri B. Rama Rao, Advocate, for Defendant No.4, Sri S.D.J.R. Advocate, for the Defendant No.6 and Defendant No.7, Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and D5 are remained Exparte, Defendant No.1 died, upon perusing the material, upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth order:-
D E C R E E
1)that the suit is hereby decreed partly;
2)that the suit is dismissed so far as the relief of specific performance is concerned;
3) that the suit is decreed granting alternative relief of refund of amount
Rs.4,00,000/- together with subsequent interest there on @ 12 % per annum from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, thereafter, @ 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of the realization 29 against D2 personally, and also against the assets of the deceased 1st defendant lying in the hands of D2 and D6.
4) that there be no order as to costs.
(A copy of the plaint schedule is attached to this decree)
Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 06th day of December, 2019.
Principal Senior Civil Judge
Anakapalle. (FAC) Addl. Senior Civil Judge/FTC Anakapalli
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS 6 & 7: No cost memo filedcost memo is filed Rs. ps. Rs. ps. Vakalat 2-00 Vakalat 2-00 Court fee on plaint 6,426-00 Advocate fee 13,700 -00 Process 120-00 Type charges 50-00 clerk wages 50-00
---------------------------------------------------
Costs certified : Rs. 6,548-00 Costs certified Rs.13,802-00
---------------------------------------------------
PSCJ/AKP. (FAC)ASCJ/FTC/AKP
NOTE: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed as per rules.
Page 1 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
// CALENDAR //
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHODAVARAM
PRESENT : Sri S. SRINIVASA RAO, ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: ANAKAPALLI, FAC.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: CHODAVARAM.
FRIDAY, THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF MARCH, 2019
SESSIONS CASE No.119/2012
(P.R.C.No.01/2010 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
NARSIPATNAM
IN
CR.NO.178/2009 OF NARSIPATNAM TOWN
POLICE STATION)
Name of the State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, ComplainantNarsipatnam Town Police Station.
Name of the Muppana Veera Rajesh @ Raja, S/o Lakshmi Prasad @ Chinni, AccusedAge 23 Years, Hindu, Advocate, D.No.1-79, Bonthu Street, Narsipatnam Village and Mandal.
01.Date of Offence27-10-2009
02.Date of Complaint01-12-2010
03.Date of Apprehension of Accused05-01-2010
04.Whether the Accused are in jail or on bailOn bail
05.Date of Commitment 22-02-2011
06.Date of commencement of trial13-11-2018
07.Date of closing of trial29-11-2018
08.Date of Sentence or Order22-03-2019
09. Explanation for delay:
a) In the Committal Court : Vide separate docket extract is herewith enclosed.
b) In this Court: The trial in this case was commenced on 13-11-2018. Arguments heard on 15-03- 2019 and the Judgment is pronounced on 22-03-2019. The delay is explained as under:
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 2 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
In this case prosecution got examined PWs.1 to PW.5. Ex.P1 to Ex.P.4 documents. The witnesses examined in this case are residents of Narsipatnam, but some of them are residents of various other places. The prosecution taken several adjournments to produce witnesses. Hence, there is delay in disposal of the case.
RESULT:-
In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 354 of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.
In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 509 of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.
In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 506(ii) of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.
In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 427 of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.
In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 323 of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.
The bail bonds of the Accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of the period of 6 months from the date of this Judgment as per Section 437-A of amended
Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Assistant Sessions Judge
Anakapalli FAC. Assistant Sessions Judge Chodavaram
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 3 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHODAVARAM
PRESENT : Sri S. SRINIVASA RAO, ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: ANAKAPALLI, FAC.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: CHODAVARAM.
FRIDAY, THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF MARCH, 2019
SESSIONS CASE No.119/2012
(P.R.C.No.01/2010 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
NARSIPATNAM
IN
CR.NO.178/2009 OF NARSIPATNAM TOWN
POLICE STATION)
Name of the State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, ComplainantNarsipatnam Town Police Station.
Name of the Muppana Veera Rajesh @ Raja, S/o Lakshmi Prasad @ Chinni, AccusedAge 23 Years, Hindu, Advocate, D.No.1-79, Bonthu Street, Narsipatnam Village and Mandal.
ChargeUnder Sections 354, 509, 427, 323 and 506 (ii) of IPC against the Accused.
Plea of AccusedPleaded Not Guilty
Finding of the Found not Guilty
Judge
Sentence or In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Order Under Section 354 of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted Under
Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.
In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 509 of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted
Under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.
In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 506(ii) of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted
Under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 4 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 427 of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted
Under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.
In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 323 of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted
Under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.
The bail bonds of the Accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of the period of 6 months from the date of this
Judgment as per Section 437-A of amended Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Prosecution Smt. G. Krishna Veni, conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor, Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
Accused is Sri P. Nageswara Rao, defended by Advocate for Accused, Narsipatnam.
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 15-03-2019 in the
presence of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of
Sri P. Nageswara Rao, Advocate for Accused upon perusing material available
on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration
till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Narsipatnam Town Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the Accused the above named Accused for the offences punishable Under Sections 354, 427, 323, 506 (2) of IPC in Cr.No.178/2009 of
Narsipatnam Town Police Station.
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 5 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
2.As per the averments of the charge sheet the case of the prosecution in brief averments are that on 27-12-2009, Lw-1 victim has taken the Shop No.7 of
Muppana Lakshmi Prasad @ Chinni of Narsipatnam who is father of the Accused with an agreement to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month towards Rent. She has also taken Shop Nos.8 and 9 of the same person by giving an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with an agreement that not to pay rent to that shops and not to receive any interest for that amount from him. Lw-1 closed the shop Nos 8 and 9 due to loss in the business and she is utilizing the said shop for Godown. Later the Accused came to her shop and informed her that his father had wrote a Will on his name, over the shop Nos 8 and 9 and he promised her that they will returned her cash of Rs.1,50,000/-. Lw-1 victim believed the words of the Accused, she had given the key of the said shops to the Accused. Later the Accused had given one shop to one person on rent basis without giving money to Lw-1 victim. On that, Lw-1 victim asked the Accused to give her amount. On that, the Accused and his father promised her that they will give her money within 15 days. But they failed to the said amount. On 12-11-2009 at about 19-00 hrs Lw-1 victim went to the said shop and locked the shops. On the same day at about 19-30 hrs, while Lw-1 victim is present at her shop, by that time, the Accused came to her shop in a drunken state and abused her in filthy language and broken the locks of the shop with an Iron Rod. On that Lw-1 victim objected the Accused for his rude behaviour. On that, the Accused grew wild against Lw-1 victim and the Accused outraged her modesty by touching her breast. The Accused is also slapped her and threatened her with dire consequences due to locking the shops. Lws 2 to 5 are present at the time of occurrence and witnessed the same and rescued Lw-1 victim from the clutched of the Accused. On 01-12-2010 at about 11-00 hrs, Lw-1 victim came to the Police Station and presented a report for necessary action. Basing on
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 6 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
the report, Lw-6 (G. Koteswara Rao, Sub Inspector of Police) registered the same as a case in Cr.No.178/2009, Under Sections 354, 427, 506(ii) of IPC. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and examined the witnesses and prepared rough sketch of the same. The Accused granted anticipatory bail by the
Hon'ble IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in Crl.M.P.No.1145/2009 dated
31-12-2009. Accordingly, the Accused surrendered before the A.J.F.C.M, Narsipatnam on 05-01-2010 and per the direction of the Hon'ble IV Additional District Judge,
Visakhapatnam the Accused was enlarged on Bail. Hence, the charge sheet has been laid against Accused.
3. This case was taken on file for the offence punishable Under Sections 354, 427, 323 and 506 of IPC against the Accused and numbered as P.R.C.01/2010 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Narsipatnam and summons were issued against the Accused.
4.On appearance of the Accused the case copies were furnished to him as per
Section 207 of Cr.P.C and this case was committed to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions at
Visakhapatnam as per Section 209 of Cr.P.C.
5. The Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Visakhapatnam numbered the case as
S.C.No.119/2012 for the said offence against the Accused and made over to the file of this Court for disposal according to law vide order in Dis.No.3658 dated 27-04-2012.
6.After receiving the case record from the file of Hon'ble Court of Sessions,
Visakhapatnam to the file of this Court summons were issued against the Accused.
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 7 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
7.On appearance of the Accused he was heard on charges. At first instance charges Under Sections 354,427,323 and 506 of IPC has been framed read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later in view of the orders in Crl.M.P.No.116/2013 dated 10-01-2014 on the file of this Court a charge Under Section 509 of IPC has been framed read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8.In order to establish, the guilt of the Accused the prosecution cited as many
as 6 witnesses. The prosecution examined Pws-1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.4. Prosecution has given up the evidence of Lw-3, prosecution evidence is closed.
9.The Accused was examined Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, with regard to the incriminating material in the evidence of the prosecution against the Accused for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. However, he filed statement Under
Section 313 Cr.P.C along with the certified copy of insolvency petition in
I.P.No.08/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Narsipatnam and certified copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.222/2010 of Narsipatnam Town Police
Station for perusal of the Court.
10.Heard arguments on both sides.
11.Now the points for consideration are :
1) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence Under Section 354 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 8 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
2) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence Under Section 427 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence Under Section 323 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
4) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence Under Section 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
5) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence Under Section 509 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
6) To what relief?
12.During the course of evidence the victim Pw-1, Bandaru Vijaya Lakshmi deposed that she is resident of Narsipatnam Village and Mandal. On 27-10-2007 she have taken three shops on lease from on Muppana Chinni to run the business, out of three shops she have taken Shop No.7 for monthly rent of Rs.1500/- entered into an agreement with the owner. She have taken remain two shops vide Shop Nos.8 and 9 by payment of Rs.1,50,000/- without interest for her amount and without rent for the shops taken by her. She started the business and running the same for some time but later she stopped the business as she sustained loss in business and she started to use the Shop Nos 8 and 9 as godown instead of business.
13.She further deposed that on 12-11-2009 the Accused approached her and stated that his father Muppana Chinni have given all the Shops properties to him and further stated he want to return the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the victim and asked her to give the keys of Shop Nos 8 and 9. She believed the words of the Accused and she handed over the keys to the Accused. But surprisingly on 12-11-2009 Accused got constructed a wall separating Shop Nos 8 and 9 and offered the same to others for rent. On that she questioned the Accused about her amount. Eventhough she waited 10 to 15 days on the request of the Accused. There is no use so she locked Shop Nos
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 9 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
8 and 9, on that day of the incident, at about 7-00 PM, at about 7-30 PM Accused came to the shop Nos 8 and 9 in a drunken state along with iron rod and started the breaking the locks. Immediately, she rushed to the Accused and questioned about his acts. Then Accused abused her stating that ''Lanjikana who asked you to lock my shop'' and caught hold her tuft and slapped her and kept his hands on her chest and pushed her. Then she fell down on ground. Witnesses namely Allu Sattibabu,
Pedhapatu Maga Ranjan, Nayani Sankara Rao came to her and lifted her. The said witnesses also tried to send the Accused away from the spot, but the Accused threatened the witnesses also. She further deposed that Accused took one knife and abused her that he will not allow to live her in Narsipatnam and if she lived there he will kill her and abused her in filthy language, she afraid about behaviour of the
Accused. However she along with Allu Sattibabu, Pedapadu Mekaranjan, Makireddi
Pedakapu went to the Police Station and narrated the entire incident to the Police. But the Police advised her to settled the matter before the elders. So, she returned back from the Police Station and approached the elders. The elders called Accused but
Accused did not attend before the elders so again on 01-12-2009 she went to the
Police Station and lodged a written report Ex.P.1 with the Police. Police came to the
Shop Nos 8 & 9 and secured the witnesses Allu Sattibabu, Pedapathu Mekaranjan,
Makereddi Pedakapu examined them and recorded their detailed statements. She have got agreement with Muppana Chinni dated 27-10-2007. She identified her alleged report as Ex.P.1.
14.Pw-2 Allu Sathibabu deposed that he is resident of Tuni doing business in three shops relating to the Accused and his father but he do not know the shop numbers, but he is whole sale Tamarind merchant used to supply the Tamarind to the shop of Pw-1. Generally, he used to go to shop of Pw-1 to collect amount in the
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 10 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
evening hours, so as usual on 12-11-2009 at about 7-30 PM he went to the shop of
Pw-1 locked the two shops situated by the side of her shop. Later the Accused came there with Iron Rod and started breaking the locks of the shop. Then Pw-1 demanded the Accused for her amount, then the Accused grew wild against Pw-1 and abused her as ''Lanjakana'' saying so Accused caught hold the tuft of Pw-1 and slapped her kept his hands on the chest of Pw-1 and pushed her. Then Pw-1 fell down on ground.
Immediately, he (Pw-2), Lw-3 Makireddi Pedakapu and Lw-4 Pedapadu Mega Ranjan warned the Accused but Accused not stopped the acts, picked up one knife and abused Pw-1 and threatened that he will kill Pw-1, subsequently on 12-09-2009 he was examined by the Police.
15.Pw-3 Pedapadu Mega Ranjan deposed that he is resident of Payakaraopeta
Village. He know the Pw-1 and other witnesses Allu Sattibabu, Makireddi Pedakapu and Nayani Sankararao and also the Accused. He further deposed that Pw-1 doing pulses business she took three shops of Accused for rent to run her business and also obtained rent agreement from father of the Accused. One shop is for rent of Rs.1500/- per month, the other two shops were taken on payment of amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Accused father with condition no interest for the said amount and no rents for the shop, he further deposed that Pw-1 informed him that Accused took the locks of the two shops and offered two shops to others without payment of amount to the Pw-1. He further deposed that Pw-1 waited upto evening hours then she locked the shops because Accused did not turn up for payment of amount to the Pw-1. He further deposed that on the date of incident he went to the shop of Pw-1 to ask the Accused about the said amount but after ½ hour Pw-1 locked the shops, Accused came to the spot and started breaking the locks with Iron Rod, then Pw-1 tried to stop the Accused and asked the Accused for her amount. But the Accused abused Pw-1 saying ''Neku
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 11 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
sambandham emeti Lanja'' and caught hold tuft of Pw-1 and slapped her. He further deposed that Accused kept his hands on the chest of Pw-1 and pushed her on the ground. Then Pw-1 fell down on the ground. Pw-2 Allu Sattibabu lifted Pw-1 and then himself(Pw-3), Pw-2, Lw-5 Nayani Sankarara Pw-3, Makireddi Pedakapu tried to control Accused, but Accused did not hear them and threatened them with dire consequences. The Accused brought one knife and threatened Pw-1 and witnesses, abused that he will kill Pw-1 if she is found in Narsipatnam.
16.Pw-4 Namana Sankara Rao deposed that he is resident of Baligatam Village in Narsipatnam Mandal. He is doing cloth business. He know the Accused, further he is doing said business in shop No.1 in the shopping complex of the Accused, started the business in the year 2009, but two years back he vacated the shop and shifted his business to Baligatam Village. He further deposed that he know the Pw-1 and she is doing business in shop No.3 of the above said shopping complex and doing business in the red chillies, Chilli powder and other house hold items. Further she also taken her shop for rent. But he do not know witnesses Alli Satti babu, Makireddi Pedakapu,
Pedapadu Mega Ranjan. Further deposed no galata was taken place between the
Accused and Pw-1 at any point of time in his presence and he did not know anything about this case and Police not examined him and not recorded any statement. He was declared as hostile and cross examined by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution, during the course of cross examination he denied that he stated
before the Police as in Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C statement.
17.Pw-5 G. Koteswara Rao deposed that he is working Inspector of Police,
Araku Circle, previously he worked as Sub Inspector of Police, Narsipatnam Town
Police Station from 09-07-2009 to 10-07-2010. On 01-12-2009 at about 11-00 hrs
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 12 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
while he was present in the Police Station he received a complaint from Pw-1. He registered the same as a case in Cr.No.178/2009 for the offence Under Sections 354, 427,506 (ii) of IPC and issued First Information Report, he identified the same as
Ex.P.3. He further deposed that he submitted original First Information Report to the
Hon'ble Court and copies to the concerned, examined Pw-1 and recorded her
statement. Later he visited the scene of offence which was situated at near market yard first ward Narsipatnam, he prepared rough sketch, he identified rough sketch as
Ex.P.4. He further deposed that later he secured Pw-2 Allu Sattibabu, Lw-3 Makireddi
Pedakapu, Pw-3 Pedapadu Mega Ranjan, Pw-4 Namana Sankara Rao and recorded their detailed statements in his case dairy. Later Accused obtained anticipatory bail from Hon'ble IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the Accused.
18.Therefore, as could be seen from the averments of the charge sheet, evidence of the prosecution on record, arguments advanced by the learned counsels on both sides and the other relevant material available on record, the specific plea of the prosecution is that the Defacto-Complainant/Pw-1 is a business person, she took the shop Nos.7, 8 and 9 of father of the Accused for running business, out of shop
Nos.7, 8 and 9. She took the shop No.7 on basis of rent, whereas she took shop Nos 8 and 9 by lending amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with a condition no rent for the shop rooms and no interest for the amount of the Defacto-Complainant/Pw-1. Further, the said amount is to be refund as and when shop Nos. 8 and 9 are vacated.
19.The further plea of the prosecution is that on 12-11-2009 Accused approached the Pw-1 with request that his father alienated three shop rooms to the
Accused and requested to hand over the keys of the shop Nos 8 and 9 to the Accused
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 13 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
and further requested that he will pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- later, by believing the words of the Accused Defacto-Complainant/Pw-1 handed over the keys to the
Accused, but on 12-11-2009 the Pw-1 locked the those two shops on the ground that as the Accused did not return the amounts of Rs.1,50,000/-, but on the same day at 7- 30 hrs Accused came to the shop rooms in drunken condition and abused the Pw-1 for locking the shop rooms and he break open the locks with iron rod when Pw-1 interfered he abused her, assaulted her and threatened her with dire consequences and also outraged her modesty by putting his hands on her breast and the same was witnessed by Pws 2 to 4. On the complaint of the Pw-1, the Police registered the case and investigated into. Thereby, the Accused is liable for punishable Under Sections 354, 427, 506, 509 and 323 of IPC.
20.In order to prove the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution has examined
Pws 1 to 5 and marked the Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 but no material objects was marked.
21.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution argued that evidence of Defacto-Complainant/Pw-1 is well corroborating with the independent witnesses Pw-2 and Pw-3 and also supporting the case of the evidence of
Investigating Officer Pw-5, so by taking the evidence of prosecution into consideration the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and Accused is liable for the punishment.
22.On the other hand the learned counsel for the Accused argued that the Pw-1 is the Defacto-Complainant who is interested witnesses, further evidence of Pws 2 and 3 is also interested witnesses as they are business man under the father of Pw-1 moreover the evidence of Pws 2 and 3 is creating a doubt with regard to their
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 14 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
presence at the time of alleged incident. He further submitted the independent witness
Pw-4 did not support the case of the prosecution. Further, the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 is suffering from contradictions in respect of material aspects with regard to the alleged incident. Further, there is abnormal and unexplained delay of 18 days in lodging the
First Information Report. So, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the
Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses itself no offense punishable Under Sections 354, 309, 427 and 323 of IPC is attracting, so the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and Accused is entitled for acquittal.
POINT NO. 1 AND 5:-
1) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence Under Section 354 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
5) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence Under Section 509 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
23.The learned counsel for the Accused submitted that the prime of the prosecution allegations is that the Accused outraged the modesty of Defacto-
Complainant/Pw-1 and committed an offence Under Section 354 and Under Section 509 of IPC. He further submitted that there are two sections in IPC dealing with the modesty of woman i.e., Section 354 of IPC outraging the modesty of a woman and
Section 509 of IPC insulting the modesty of a woman. The former deals with the physical act and the later deals with the verbal act. He further submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 354 of IPC are
1) That the assault must be on a woman;
2) That the Accused must have used criminal force on her;
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 15 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
3) That the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty.
At the same time the essential ingredients to attract the offence Under Section 509 of
IPC are
1) That the insult must be on a woman;
2) That the Accused must have utter any word, make any sound or gesture or exhibits any object;
3) That the uttering a word, making a sound or gesture or exhibiting any object to a woman intending thereby to insult her modesty.
24.He further submitted that what constitutes an outrage to female modesty, it is nowhere defined in IPC. The essence of a woman modesty is her sex. Modesty of a woman is together different concept which was very little to do with the physique of the woman and it is intimately connected with the femininity including her sex.
Bashfulness is another characteristic of this femininity. An attempt to assault only shall not amount to outraging or insulting the modesty of a woman. He further submitted none of the prosecution witnesses including the Pw-1 nowhere stated in their evidence that the Accused assaulted or used criminal force on Pw-1 in order to have sexual connection with her as such either Section 354 of IPC or Section 509 of IPC has no applicability.
25.In the instant case, to establish the guilt of the Accused for the offence
Under Sections 354 and 359 of IPC prosecution examined Pws 1 to 5. The plea of the prosecution is Pws-2 to 4 are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Pw-4 did not support the case of the prosecution, he was turned hostile and cross examined by
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution, during the course of cross
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 16 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
examination also nothing material is could be elicited to discredit his evidence. The plea of Pws 1 to 3 is while Accused in drunken state break opening the locks of shop
Nos 8 and 9 when Pw-1 interested Accused pushed her by placing his hands on breast. But Pws 1 to 3 did not state that Accused used said force in order to have sexual connection with the Pw-1.
26.The learned counsel for the Accused relied upon a decision reported in 2014(2) ALT (Crl.) 78 A.P.
Bhavanam Lalitha Reddy Vs. Perumalla Purnachandra Rao
Wherein it was observed by the Lordship '' Every physical assault on a woman cannot be said to be the act of outraging her modesty. The essence of the offence is that the assault or use of criminal force must be with the intention of outraging the modesty of the woman or with the knowledge that the womans modesty will be outraged.'' ''there was a quarrel between the complaint and Accused-1 and Accused -2 about the enhancement and / or payment of the rent and vacating the house belonging to them. In the course of the said quarrel, Accused No.2 allegedly came upon the Petitioner, abused her in filthy language, demanded her to pay the rent at higher rate or to vacate the premises, caught hold of her tuft and kicked her by pulling her down. The aforesaid alleged criminal act does not attract the ingredients of the offence punishable Under Section 5354 of IPC., since it was not done with the intention to outrage the modesty of the
Petitioner or with the knowledge that her modesty will be outraged''.
27.In the instant case, as could be seen from the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 admittedly there are disputes between his father and Pw-1 with regard to money transaction. Further, though it is the plea of the Pw-1 that she lend Rs.1,50,000/- to the father of the Accused with a condition that there is no rent for the shop rooms and no interest for the amount lend by her. But, later Accused and father of the Accused failed to repay the said amount thereby the alleged incident was happened, but there is no documentary evidence except oral testimony of Pws 1 to 3. Moreover, the plea of the
Pw-1 is that Pw-2 and Pw-3 are her co-business man. Accordingly, there were present
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 17 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
at the time of alleged incident and witnessed the same, but as per the evidence of
Pw-2 and Pw-3. They are not the business people for the said locality Pw-2 is whole sale tamarind merchant and used to supply the tamarind to the shop of Pw-1. Pw-3 used to supply chilly to the surrounding shops and Pw-1 shop, so they went to the shop of Pw-1 for collecting money, by that time the incident was happened. So, the evidence of Pw-1 is inconsistent with the Pws 2 and 3 with regard to the presence of
Pws 2 and 3 by the time of alleged incident. Moreover, there is no documentary proof to show that Pw-2 is used to supply tamarind to the shop of Pw-1 and Pw-3 is supplying chilly to the shop of Pw-1. Admittedly, the Pw-2 and Pw-3 are not the residents of said locality and they are the resident of Tuni, Payakayaraopeta respectively which are far places from the place of incident. So, it is creating a doubt with regarding the presence of Pws 2 and 3 by the time of alleged incident.
28. The learned counsel for the Accused further relied upon a decision reported in AIR 2007 SC 49 between
Ramkripal, S/o Shyamal Charmakar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Wherein it was observed by the Lordship ''the essence of a woman modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty in this section is in attribute associated with female human beings as a class. It is virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex. The act of pulling a woman, removing her saree, coupled the request for sexual intercourse, is such as would be an outrage the modesty of a woman; and knowledge, that modesty is likely to be outraged is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object. As indicated above, the word ' modesty' is not defined in IPC. The shorter Oxford Dictionary (third Ed.) defines the word 'modesty' in relation to the woman as follows:- ''Decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lower; Shame – fast;
Scrupulously chast''.
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 18 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
Modesty is being defined as the quality of being modest; and in relation to woman, ''womanlypropriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct.'' It is the reserve or sense of shame proceedings from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions. As observed by Justice Patterson in Rex V. James Llyod (1876) 7 C & P 817 in order to find the Accused quilty of an assault with intention to commit a rape, Court must be satisfied that the Accused, when he laid hold of the prosecutrix, not only desired to gratify his passions upon her person but that he intended to do so at all events and notwithstanding any resistance on her part. The point of distinction between an offence of attempt to commit rape and to commit indecent assault is that here should be some action on the part of the Accused which would show that he was just going to have sexual intercourse with her.''
29.In the instant case, it is already discussed above that none of the prosecution witnesses has stated in their evidence that the Accused assaulted or used criminal force on Pw-1 in order to have sexual connection with her. So, under these circumstances in the light of case law submitted by the learned counsel for the
Accused it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable Under Section 354 of IPC and Under Section 509 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, these two points were answered.
POINT NOS 2 AND 3:-
2) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence Under Section 427 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence Under Section 323 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
30.The specific plea of the prosecution is that Defacto-Complainant/Pw-1 lend an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the father of the Accused for the shop nos 8 and 9 and same is to be return with a condition no rent for the shop rooms and no interest for the amount given by Pw-1. The further plea of the prosecution is that Accused approached the Pw-1 stating that his father alienated all the three shop rooms in his favour and
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 19 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
further stated that he will return the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Pw-1 and asked to hand over the keys of the shops nos 8 and 9 to him. The further plea of the prosecution is that believing the words of the Accused and father of the Accused, Pw- 1 handed over the keys of shop nos 8 and 9 to the Accused. But, Accused failed to return the amount and drag on the matter, upon that on 12-11-2009 when the Pw-1 locked the shop rooms with a demand to return the amount of the Pw-1. But, Accused without return the amount of the Pw-1 break opening the keys of the shop rooms 8 and 9, thereby committed offence punishable Under Section 427 of IPC and its further plea is that when the Pw-1 questioned the acts of the Accused, he abused her and slapped her thereby he committed offence Under Section 323 of IPC. In order to establish the guilt of the Accused the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 5. It is already discussed above that independent witness Pw-4 did not support the case of the prosecution whereas Pw-5 is Investigating Officer who said to have registering the report of Pw-1 as crime and investigated into, filed the charge sheet, he deposed to that effect only.
31.Further, it was already discussed above that the presence of Pw-2 and Pw-3 at the time of alleged incident is doubtful.
32.The learned counsel for the Accused submitted that the 2nd allegation of the prosecution is that the Accused committed an offence of mischief Under Section 427 of IPC. He further submitted that what constitute a mischief is defined Under Section 425 of IPC. The essential ingredients of offence of mischief are
1) Intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage to the property or to any person;
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 20 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
2)Causing the destruction of some property or any change in it or in its situation.
3)Such change must destroy or diminish its value or utility or effect it injuriously.
33.So, in order to establish the guilty of the Accused for the offence Under
Section 427 of IPC. The prosecution has to establish that the property was destroyed or underwent such a change that it diminished the utility or value of the property otherwise no offence Under Section 425 of IPC could be held to have been committed.
He further submitted that the mere fact any loss or damage may be caused to the property would not constitute mischief unless the intention of the alleged offender was to cause wrongful loss or wrongful damage to the person concerned.
34.He further submitted as per the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 it is admitted fact that the property belongs to father of the Accused. Further, the Pw-1 is a tenant in the said property. The version of Pw-1 with regard to the property is that she believed the words of the Accused and father of the Accused, that she handed over the shop keys to them. Further, Pw-1 deposed in her evidence that on 12-11-2009 the Accused who is present in the Court hall came along with his father Muppana Chinni and stated that his father gave all shops to him. Further they stated that they will return Rs.1,50,000/- and asked her to give the keys of shops 8 and 9 because, she believed the Accused and his father because they are the owners of the shop rooms. Further, on 12-11-2009 the Accused got constructed a wall separating shop Nos 8 and 9 and offered the same to the others for rent. So, from the evidence of Pw-1 it is apparent that she herself gave shop keys to the Accused and the Accused constructed a wall and offered the
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 21 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
same to others for rent. None of the Accused stated that there is destructions of the property belongs either to the owner or to the tenant as Pw-1. Further, it is not a case of the prosecution that there is a loss or damage to some extent, so in the absence of such extent of loss or damage the alleged offence does not fall within ambit of Section 427 of IPC.
35.In the instant case, admittedly except mere stating that Accused try to break open the locks of shop Nos 8 and 9 which are laid by the Pw-1 with iron rod no witnesses has stated that there is any loss or damage to the said shop rooms.
Admittedly, by the time of alleged incident Accused is in the possession of said two rooms.
36.The learned counsel for the Accused further submitted that the third allegations of the prosecution against the Accused is that he committed an offence of voluntarily causing hurt Under Section 323 of IPC. He further submitted that the term hurt is defined in Section 319 of IPC and voluntarily causing hurt is defined in Section 321 of IPC. The essential ingredients of voluntarily causing hurt is defined in Section 325 of IPC.
1) the intention of causing hurt to any person;
2) the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person;
3) that such person should sustain an injury.
37.He further submitted that therefore in order to constitute an offence punishable Under Section 323 of IPC, the prosecution must be proved that the
Accused with the intention and knowledge inflicted injuries and caused bodily pain to the opposite party, the opposite party sustained the such injuries shall be explained by
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 22 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
the prosecution. He further submitted there is no explanation of injuries by any of the prosecution witness i.e., Pw-1 to 3. Further more Pw-1 in her cross examination admitted that at the time of incident, shop nos 8 and 9 are in the possession and enjoyment of Accused and he got constructed walls and kept the cement and sand inside the rooms. Similarly, Pw-2 deposed as on the date of the incident shops are in the possession and enjoyment of the Accused. So, also Pw-3 deposed that he advised
Pw-1 to lock the shops since her amount is not paid.
38.In the instant case as per the evidence of Pw-1, during the course of incident the Accused slapped her, whereas Pw-2 deposed that Accused pushed Pw-1 on that she fell down on the ground. Pw-3 deposed that Accused pushed Pw-1 on that Pw-1 fell down on the ground. So, the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 is inconsistent with each other.
And no witnesses has stated that Pw-1 sustained injuries either simple or grievous.
So, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence Under Section 427 of IPC and Under Section 323 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, these two points are answered.
POINT NO. 4:-
4) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence Under Section 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
39.The specif plea of the prosecution is that during the course of incident,
Accused threatened the Pw-1 with dire consequences by showing the knife and abused her thereby Accused is liable for the punishment Under Section 506(ii) of IPC.
To establish the said offence the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 5, it is already stated above that Pw-5 is Investigating Officer, Pw-4 is Independent witness and Pw-4 did not
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 23 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
support the case of the prosecution he turned hostile, cross examined by Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor. The evidence remains is Pws 1 to 3. The plea of the
Pws 1 to 3 is Accused threatened the Pw-1 with dire consequences by showing knife and threatened Pw-1 that she cannot live in the Narsipatnam and if she lived there he will kill her and he can take over shops.
40. The learned counsel for the Accused submitted, the last allegation made against the Accused is criminal intimidation punishable Under Section 506(ii) of IPC.
The offence is itself defined in Section 503 of IPC. So to constitute an offence Under
Section 506 of IPC the prosecution has to establish that
1) a threat to a person;
2) the threat must be cause injury to his person, reputation or property;
3) There must be an intention to cause harm to that person.
So in the absence of the said basic ingredients the offence does not falls within the ambit and Section 506 of IPC. He further submitted that the Defacto-Complainant/
Pw-1 did not express any fear for her life nor asked any protection in her report Ex.P.1.
Further, the evidence of the prosecution did not disclose the threats given by the
Accused with an intention to cause alarm to Pw-1. So the offence Under Section 506(ii) of IPC has not applicable to the Accused.
41.The learned counsel for the Accused relied upon a decision reported in 1967
CriLJ 1347
B.T.Sharma Vs. State
Where it was observed by the lordship ''mere threats given by the Accused, not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant with an intention to deter him from interfering with what
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 24 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
the Accused believed to be his exclusive right of passage through a door would not constitute criminal intimidation.
42. The learned counsel for the Accused further submitted that there is an owner and tenant relationship between the parties, if there is any civil dispute among them Pw-1 might have approached a Civil Court. But she did not do so. Further, Pw-1 is not a rustic woman. She is a business woman and she is facing legal charges under
Negotiable Instruments Act. Even otherwise there is no documentary evidence to prove that the Accused or his father have to return an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the
Pw-1. If it was true then she would have shown such amount in B schedule of I.P filed by her. The fact that Pw-1 filed an I.P before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge,
Narsipatnam was admitted by her. The certified copy of the said I.P also filed by the
Accused alongwith his statement when he was examined Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
He further stated that Pw-1 denied fact that she gave another report in Cr.No.222/2010 to the Narsipatnam Police which was referred as false. The served copy of First
Information Report in Cr.No.222/2010 is filed by the Accused as document No.2 in 313 Cr.P.C examination. He further submitted that in cross examination of Pw-1 she bluntly denied the very fact that she gave a report to the Police in Cr.No.222/2010 and the same was referred as false. So, it clearly shows that the Pw-1 made continuous efforts to implicate the Accused in false cases to have wrongful gain. He further submitted that Pw-2 and 3 are not local residents of Narsipatnam and they are the chance witnesses.
43.The learned counsel for the Accused submitted that there is a abnormal delay of 18 days in registering First Information Report, it was not explained by the prosecution. So, it is a fatal to the case of the prosecution. He further submitted as per the evidence of Pw-1 she alongwith Allu Sattibabu, Pedapadu Mekaranjan and
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 25 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
Makireddi Pedakapu went to the Narsipatnam Police Station and narrated the entire incident to the Police. The Police advised her to settle the matter before the elders as it is civil in nature. But, contrary to the Pw-1, witnesses Pw-5 Investigating Officer has stated that the Pw-1 alongwith the witnesses did not come to the Police Station immediately after the alleged incident and he have not stated to settle the matter
before the elders as it is the money issue. Admittedly, as per the evidence of Pw-1 and
other witnesses the alleged incident was happened on 12-11-2009, whereas report was alleged in the Police Station on 01-12-2009 at 11-00 hrs, there is a delay of 18 days in lodging the First Information Report and there is no proper explanation for the prosecution in the said delay of 18 days.
44.The learned counsel for Accused has relied upon a decision report in AIR 2002 SC 2775 between
Gajula Venkateswararao Vs. State of A.P
Wherein it was observed by the Lordship that an ''unexplained delay would be fatal to the prosecution.''
45.The learned counsel for the Accused further relied upon a decision reported in 2003 CriLJ 4637, between
Shiv Bali Vs. State of U.P
Wherein it was held by the Lordship where there was inordinate delay in lodging of First Information Report, Accused is held entitled to benefit of doubt''.
46.The learned counsel for the Accused submitted, as per the evidence of Pw-1 her report Ex.P.1 was drafted by one person to her dictation. She do not know the name of the person and details. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to examine the author of Ex.P.1 First Information Report which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 26 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
47.The learned counsel for the Accused relied upon a decision reported in 2007 CriLJ 1247 (Mad) between the Mirthagai Ali Vs. State.
Wherein it was observed by the Lordship that non- examination of the person who was said to have written report was held to be fatal to the prosecution case.
48.In the instant case, admittedly the plea of the Pw-1 is her report Ex.P.1 was drafted by one person to her dictation. Pw-1 failed to say atleast name or details of the person who drafted her report. Prosecution also did not made any effort to know author of Ex.P.1 and did not tried to examine the author of Ex.P.1. So, under these circumstances, in the light of the case law submitted the learned counsel for the
Accused basing on the evidence of Pws 1 to 5 it cannot be said that the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the Accused for the offence Under Section 506(ii) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point was answered.
POINT NO.6:-
49.In view of my above discussion in respect of point Nos.1 to 5 the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable Under
Sections 354, 323, 506, 509 and 427 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Accused is entitled for acquittal.
RESULT:-
50.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 354 of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.
In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 509 of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 27 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 506(ii) of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.
In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 427 of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.
In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 323 of IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.
The bail bonds of the Accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of the period of 6 months from the date of this Judgment as per Section 437-A of amended
Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in
open Court, on this the 22 nd day of March, 2019.
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Anakapalli,
Fac. Assistant Sessions Judge, Chodavaram.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NUMBER OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION
P.W.113-11-2018Bandaru Vijayalakshmi P.W.214-11-2018Allu Sattibabu P.W.314-11-2018Pedapati Mega Ranjan P.W.428-11-2018Namana Sankara Rao P.W.529-11-2018G. Koteswara Rao (Inspector of Police)
NUMBER OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE
- Nil -
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Page 28 of 28 in Fair Judgment in S.C.No.119/2012 dt.22-03-2019 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chodavaram.
NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P.1 01-12-2009Written report given by the Pw-1 to the Police Ex.P.201-12-2009164 Cr.P.C statement of Lw-5 Ex.P.301-12-2009First Information Report
Ex.P.401-12-2009Rough sketch
NUMBER OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
- NIL -
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Anakapalli,
FAC. Assistant Sessions Judge, Chodavaram.
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chodavaram
Order Record 1,924 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EP/196/2025 | M/S. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs Botta Appala Raju | 24 Mar 2026 | ORDERS | — |
| G.W.O.P/25/2025 | Sargunan Manivannan vs NIL | 23 Mar 2026 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/969/2024 | M/S. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs M.Dhanalakshmi | 13 Mar 2026 | ORDERS | — |
| G.W.O.P/17/2025 | Rapaka Prema Kumar vs NIL | 03 Mar 2026 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/689/2023 | Yedla Vasudeva Rao vs Padavala Thirumala Rao | 24 Feb 2026 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/242/2025 | M/s Shriram Finance Limited vs Sivakoti Siva | 20 Feb 2026 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/526/2025 | M/S. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs Dukka Satti Babu | 20 Feb 2026 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/624/2025 | M/s Shriram Finance Limited vs Kuppili Ramu | 04 Feb 2026 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/860/2024 | M/s Viswajyothi Exim and Logistic P Ltd, rep by its M.D, K.Subrahmanya Dattatreya Dattu Raju vs V.Ramesh | 29 Jan 2026 | ORDERS | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/80/2026 | Nemala Nanaji vs SHO PAYAKARAOPETA POLICE STATION | 23 Jan 2026 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| EP/80/2023 | Indusind Bank Limited, rep by Balla Anil Kumar, S/o Ravi Kumar vs Dalli Raju | 22 Jan 2026 | ORDERS | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/50/2026 | Narava Appala Ramu vs SHO PM PALEM POLICE STAITON | 22 Jan 2026 | ORDERS | — |
| SC/64/2020 | MUNCHINGPUTT POLICE STATION vs Gouranga Shuabi @ Rajender | 19 Jan 2026 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/35/2026 | Kona Lokesh vs SHO NEW PORT POLICE STATION | 19 Jan 2026 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| EP/303/2025 | M/s Shriram Finance Limited vs Bariki Pushpalatha | 08 Jan 2026 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/438/2024 | Hajari Lal Saini vs S.Satyanarayana | 08 Jan 2026 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/51/2025 | M/s Shriram Finance Limited vs Vijaya Durga Dev Lalam | 06 Jan 2026 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/204/2025 | M/S. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs Dasari Nagamani | 06 Jan 2026 | ORDERS | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3920/2025 | Kona Lokesh vs SHO NEW PORT POLICE STATION | 02 Jan 2026 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/575/2024 | M/s Shriram Finance Limited vs S S R Services | 30 Dec 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3855/2025 | Pathivada Gowri Sai (Gurrala Sai) vs SHO MVP POLICE STAION | 30 Dec 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| EP/800059/2018 | SHIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD vs K. Ganesh Kumar | 29 Dec 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3854/2025 | Indigibilli Santhosh vs SHO PM PALEM POLICE STAITON | 19 Dec 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| EP/520/2025 | M/s Shriram Finance Limited vs P.Ramya | 17 Dec 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| MVOP/1122/2021 | Raavi Srinivas vs M.Krishna Maharana | 17 Dec 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| MVOP/1123/2021 | Raavi Srinivas vs Mittu Krishna Maharana | 17 Dec 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| AS/125/2020 | Jami Varalakshmi vs Bantupalli Ramana | 15 Dec 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| EP/694/2023 | Hamsa Raja Kumar vs Karneddi Adibabu | 15 Dec 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| MVOP/850/2022 | Nukala Konda vs Bade Raju | 15 Dec 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| MVOP/1019/2022 | Sabbavarapu Simhachalam vs Nalli Vasu | 15 Dec 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3789/2025 | Gandi Satish vs SHO DUVVADA POLICE STATION | 15 Dec 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| EP/60/2023 | M/S Shriram Transport Fin Com ltd Rep By Chiriki Ramesh vs Vadamodhul Srinivasa Rao | 12 Dec 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| OS/155/2014 | VYASAM KIRAN KUMAR vs PINDI BHASKAR RAO | 12 Dec 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| OS/550/2016 | NATTI ADINARAYANA vs BORA RAMANAMMA | 12 Dec 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| OS/794/2014 | Seerapu Bhaskar Reddy vs Smt Beeraka Varalakshmi | 12 Dec 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3814/2025 | Surapaneni Karthikeyudu (Karthik) vs SHO III TOWN POLICE STATION | 10 Dec 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3816/2025 | Godradora Venkatarao vs SHO HUKUMPETA POLICE STATION | 10 Dec 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| SC.MU/186/2022 | State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka PS, Visakhapatnam city vs Balla Rama Krishna | 04 Dec 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3635/2025 | Seerapu Somesh Reddy vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 04 Dec 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3731/2025 | Korangi Appalaraju vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 04 Dec 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| SC/34/2020 | PADERU POLICE STATION vs Vanjangi Satyannnarayana Naidu @ Chanti | 03 Dec 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3750/2025 | Godradora Venkatarao vs SHO HUKUMPETA POLICE STATION | 02 Dec 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3699/2025 | Mallarapu Deoraj (Devaraju) vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 28 Nov 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| MVOP/186/2024 | Yedida Chilakamma vs Indukuri Venkata Ramana Raju | 26 Nov 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3558/2025 | Surapaneni Karthikeyudu (Karthik) vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 25 Nov 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3588/2025 | Indigibilli Santhosh vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 25 Nov 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3609/2025 | Mudapaka Sai Krishna vs SHO ARILOVA POLICE STAITON | 24 Nov 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3610/2025 | Korangi Appalaraju vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 21 Nov 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| OS/195/2025 | Kalangi Naga Venkata Rama Kishore vs Bommu Mallikarjuna Reddy | 20 Nov 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| MVOP/196/2023 | Bodireddy Srinivasa Reddy vs Borra Manikanta | 17 Nov 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/749/2023 | M/S. Shriram transport Finance Company Limited Rep BySuresh Pakki vs Viyyapu Ramana | 14 Nov 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| MVOP/370/2021 | Bhogaraju Hymavathi and another vs Behara Gopi and another | 14 Nov 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| MVOP/147/2017 | ADARI NAGESH vs BOMMALI VASU | 13 Nov 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3467/2025 | Godradora Venkatarao vs SHO HUKUMPETA POLICE STATION | 13 Nov 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3458/2025 | Vishal Agarwal vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 12 Nov 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| EP/910/2024 | M/s Shriram Finance Limited vs Undamatla Srinu | 11 Nov 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3417/2025 | Korangi Appalaraju vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 10 Nov 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3264/2025 | Mugi Uday Kiran vs STATE REPRESENTED BY ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 07 Nov 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3347/2025 | Kona Lokesh vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 07 Nov 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3348/2025 | Mohammd Babullu Allam vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 06 Nov 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3349/2025 | Sunarpati Kumari vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 06 Nov 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3350/2025 | Bura Kanaka Mahalaxmi vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 06 Nov 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| AS/3/2018 | NAMBURI VENKATA GOPALA PANDU RANGA RAJU vs THE STATE REP BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR | 31 Oct 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| EP/134/2019 | M/S. Shriram transport Finance Company Limited vs B. Ram Babu | 31 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/252/2023 | B. Jayalakshmi vs Chatla Surya Narayana | 31 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/449/2019 | M/S. Shiram Transport Finance Company Limited, vs K. Jai Rana | 31 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/765/2024 | INDUS IND BANK LTD. vs Gotivada Srinu | 31 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| CRLA.MU/132/2021 | Sidaga Srinivasa Rao vs Chatla Ganapathi Reddy and another | 31 Oct 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| CRLA.MU/417/2023 | Katta Murali Krishna vs State rep. by its Addl. P.P. | 31 Oct 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3285/2025 | Mudaaka Sai Krishna vs SHO ARILOVA POLICE STAITON | 31 Oct 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| SC.MU/119/2023 | The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem P.S, Visakhapatnam city vs Satti Ganesh @ Gajapathi Reddy | 28 Oct 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| CRLA.MU/112/2022 | Mallela Kondareddy vs THE STATE OF A.P. REP. BYP.P. VISAKHAPATNAM AND ANAOTHER | 27 Oct 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| EP/275/2025 | M/s Shriram Finance Limited vs Aruku Chinnayya | 24 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/476/2025 | M/s Shriram Finance Limited vs Venkataramana Vasantha | 24 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/208/2019 | M/S. Shiram Transport Finance Company Limited, vs K. Naga Malleswari | 23 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/133/2021 | M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vs K Suresh | 22 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/303/2024 | M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vs Vadagalla Srinu | 22 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| OS/428/2012 | YELLAPU VENKATARAO AND 2 OTHRS vs SMT. DAVULURI SATYAVATHI AND 2 OTHRS | 22 Oct 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| SC.MU/108/2023 | The State represented by the Asst. commissioner of Police, West Sub Division, Visakhapatnam city vs Muppidi Gowri Prasad and others | 22 Oct 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| EP/424/2025 | M/s Shriram Finance Limited vs Resapu Manga Surya Kala | 17 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/800055/2018 | SHIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD vs M. SANYASI RAJU | 17 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/89/2025 | M/S. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs SVS Ranga Rao | 16 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/116/2025 | M/S. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs T Ranga Rao | 16 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/560/2024 | M/s Shriram Finance Limited vs Narayana Rao Sabbavarapu | 16 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3121/2025 | Sunarpati Kumari vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 16 Oct 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3150/2025 | Mohammd Babullu Allam vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 16 Oct 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3151/2025 | Bura Kanaka Mahalaxmi vs SHO KANCHARAPALEM POLICE STATION | 16 Oct 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3152/2025 | Sonu Kumar vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 16 Oct 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3176/2025 | Dulapalli Chinnaraju vs STATE REPRESENTED BY ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 16 Oct 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| EP/44/2025 | M/s Shriram Finance Limited vs Melam Ashok | 15 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/55/2023 | M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd rep by its GPA holder MV Ravi Kumar vs BH.Pydithalli Naidu | 15 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| EP/642/2023 | M/s Shriram City Union Finance Ltd vs D Lakshmana Rao | 14 Oct 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| SC/5/2021 | MUNCHINGPUTT POLICE STATION vs Mukki Karribabu | 13 Oct 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3018/2025 | Dulla Kishore vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 10 Oct 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3019/2025 | Gandi Satish vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 10 Oct 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/3001/2025 | Yangali Gopi vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 09 Oct 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
| OS/322/2015 | LALEM PEDDI LAXMI vs GEDDAM LATCHAMMA | 07 Oct 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| MVOP/814/2022 | Kurusa Ramesh vs Korra Kondababu | 29 Sep 2025 | ORDERS | — |
| CRLA.MU/74/2022 | Mallela Konda Reddy vs Rikka Satyanarayana reddy and another | 29 Sep 2025 | JUDGEMENT | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/2983/2025 | Sonu Kumar vs STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | 29 Sep 2025 | ORDER IN CRLMP | — |
Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)
| Mar 2026 | 4 | |
| Feb 2026 | 4 | |
| Jan 2026 | 11 | |
| Dec 2025 | 23 | |
| Nov 2025 | 20 | |
| Oct 2025 | 35 | |
| Sep 2025 | 61 | |
| Aug 2025 | 54 | |
| Jul 2025 | 9 | |
| Jun 2025 | 35 | |
| May 2025 | 19 | |
| Apr 2025 | 32 |
Log in for full trend data.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Sri S.Srinivasa Rao handled?
Sri S.Srinivasa Rao has handled 2011 court orders since 2017 at Senior Civil Judge Chodavaram. The average disposal rate is 26 orders per month.
What types of cases does Sri S.Srinivasa Rao hear?
Based on available records, Sri S.Srinivasa Rao primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) at Senior Civil Judge Chodavaram.
Where is Sri S.Srinivasa Rao currently posted?
Sri S.Srinivasa Rao is posted as IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE at Senior Civil Judge Chodavaram, Visakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
Are judgments by Sri S.Srinivasa Rao available online?
Yes. 44 judgments by Sri S.Srinivasa Rao are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does Sri S.Srinivasa Rao dispose cases?
Sri S.Srinivasa Rao disposes approximately 26 cases per month, based on 2011 orders handled over their tenure at Senior Civil Judge Chodavaram.
Since when is Sri S.Srinivasa Rao serving?
Sri S.Srinivasa Rao has been serving at Senior Civil Judge Chodavaram since 2017.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Jul 2023 — Sep 2023IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE · 34 orders
-
Jul 2023 — Sep 2023X Addl District and Session Judge · 45 orders
-
May 2023 — PresentVII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE · 736 orders
-
Sep 2019 — Nov 2019ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) · 6 orders
-
Dec 2018 — May 2019CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) · 19 orders
-
Jun 2017 — Jul 2020PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) · 1,000 orders
-
Jun 2017 — Jun 2017PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) · 4 orders
-
Jun 2017 — Jul 2020ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) FTC · 161 orders
-
May 2017 — Jun 2017ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) · 6 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court