Currently Serving

Mr. Sai Kiran Kasamala

Junior Civil Judge

Luxettipet, JCJ Court Complex · Mancherial · Telangana

Mr. SAI KIRAN KASAMALA, Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Luxettipet, JCJ Court Complex, Mancherial, Telangana, India. 1,444 court orders on record since 2025. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles STC, CC, OS cases.

1,444

Total Orders

Judgments

112

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/1/2026

Ramindla Naresh vs Ramilla alias Ramindla Madhunaiah

04 May 2026

O.S. No.01 of 2026 Page No.1 of 9

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT :: LUXETTIPET

PRESENT:- SRI SAI KIRAN KASAMALA Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet.

Monday, this the 04th day of May, 2026.

Original Suit No.01 of 2026

Between:-

Ramindla Naresh, S/o: Late Rajam, Age: 46 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.1-72, Subhash Nagar, Vempalli Village, Hajipur Mandal, Mancherial District. …. Plaintiff

// AND //

1. Ramilla @ Ramindla Madhunaiah, S/o: Late Rajam, Age: 46 years, Occ: Government Employee, R/o: H.No.1-131, Subhash Nagar, Vempalli Village, Hajipur Mandal, Mancherial District.

2. Ramindla Laxmi, W/o: Late Rajam, Age: 79 years, Occ: Not Working, R/o: H.No.1-72, Subhash Nagar, Vempalli Village, Hajipur Mandal, Mancherial District. …. Defendant Nos.1 and 2

This Suit is coming up before me today for final hearing, in the presence of Sri Puli Rayamallu and Sri Gadikoppula Kiran Kumar, Learned Counsels for the Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are set ex-parte, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:-

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

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against Defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking partition of the land to an extent of Ac. 01-31.00 Gts., in Survey

No.164/1 situated at Vempally Shivar, Hajipur Mandal, Mancherial District

O.S. No.01 of 2026 Page No.2 of 9

(hereinafter referred to as the “suit schedule property”), into 1/3rd share of the Plaintiff by metes and bounds, and for a declaration that the gift settlement deed dated 15.07.2025 vide Document No.556/2025 executed by

Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 is null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff.

2.The brief averments of the plaint in nutshell are :-

The Plaintiff submitted that he and Defendant No.1 are the sons of

Defendant No.2 and the late Ramindla Rajam, and that Defendant No.1 is his elder brother while Defendant No.2 is his mother. It is further submitted that they are the Class-I legal heirs of the deceased Ramindla Rajam, who died leaving behind the Plaintiff and the Defendants as his legal heirs. Upon his death, they succeeded to the land to an extent of Ac. 01-31 Gts., in

Survey No.164/1 situated at Vempally Shivar, Hajipur Mandal, bounded by:

East: Highway Road; West: Kadari Mohan Reddy; North: Land of Sampath; and South: Others’ land. The Plaintiff further submitted that, after the death of Ramindla Rajam in the year 1998, the Plaintiff and the Defendants succeeded to the suit schedule property, which stood in the name of the deceased, and have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. It is submitted that the parties are governed by Hindu Law under the Mitakshara

School, constituting an undivided Hindu family, and that the suit schedule property is a joint family property. It is further submitted that the property

O.S. No.01 of 2026 Page No.3 of 9

was mutated in the name of Defendant No.2 after the death of Ramindla

Rajam, but the nature of the property continued to remain joint family property under joint possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff and the

Defendants. It is further submitted that Defendant Nos.1 and 2, without informing him, colluded with each other and conspired to effect an illegal transfer of the suit schedule property. On coming to know of the same, the

Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 09.07.2025 to the Tahsildar, Hajipur- cum-Sub-Registrar, requesting not to entertain any transfer by way of gift or sale without his knowledge. Copies of the said notice were also sent to

Defendant No.2 and to higher authorities, namely, the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Mancherial, and the Collector, Mancherial District. Despite receipt of the said notice, Defendant No.2 executed a gift settlement deed in favour of Defendant No.1 vide document No.556/2025 dated 15.07.2025 in respect of a part of the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac. 01-13 Gts., in Survey

No.164/1. It is submitted that the said gift deed is illegal, null and void, and not binding on the Plaintiff, as it was executed fraudulently excluding his lawful share in the joint family property. The Plaintiff further submitted that, upon learning about the said illegal transfer, he approached the Defendants and questioned them as to how they could effect such transfer without his consent, as he is a lawful co-sharer. However, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 denied his share and threatened him. Thereupon, the Plaintiff convened a Panchayat on 25.05.2025 with the assistance of community elders and well-wishers,

O.S. No.01 of 2026 Page No.4 of 9

wherein he demanded his lawful share, i.e., 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that one Thungapindi Rajeshwari, wife of

Thungapindi Rajalingu, is the sister of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and daughter of Defendant No.2 and the deceased Ramindla Rajam. She is married and residing at her matrimonial home and has already received sufficient amount towards her share. Though she is a necessary party, she has expressed her relinquishment of her share and, therefore, has not been made a party to the present proceedings. It is submitted that Defendant

Nos.1 and 2 are attempting to deprive the Plaintiff of his lawful share. The

Plaintiff further submitted that he requested Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to allot his lawful share, i.e., 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property, but they failed and refused to do so. Despite making all possible efforts, the Plaintiff could not secure his share. He also approached the Tahsildar by making a representation regarding the illegal transfer, but the Tahsildar expressed inability and advised him to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. It is further submitted that Defendant Nos.1 and 2, in collusion with each other, are making further attempts to alienate the suit schedule property in any manner, thereby excluding the Plaintiff’s share.

The Plaintiff has received reliable information that the Defendants are making secret efforts to dispose of the property. Hence, the Plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit seeking partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property.

O.S. No.01 of 2026 Page No.5 of 9

3.Inspite of service of summons, there is no representation on behalf of the Defendants. Hence, the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were set ex-parte on 18.02.2026. Thereafter no petition was filed to set aside the ex-parte order.

4.During the course of the trial, the Plaintiff got examined himself as

PW1. Through PW1, the following Exs.A1 to A14 documents were admitted into evidence:

i.Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1994-1995. (Ex.A1) ii.Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2002-2003. (Ex.A2) iii.Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2003-2004. (Ex.A3) iv.Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 204-2005. (Ex.A4) v.Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 205-2006. (Ex.A5) vi.Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2006-2007. (Ex.A6) vii.Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2007-2008. (Ex.A7) viii. Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2008-2009. (Ex.A8) ix.Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2009-2010. (Ex.A9) x.Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2010-2011. (Ex.A10) xi.Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-2012. (Ex.A11) xii.Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-2013. (Ex.A12) xiii. Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2013-2014. (Ex.A13) xiv.Legal Notice, dated 09.07.2025. (Ex.A14)

5.Heard the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Perused the record.

6.Now the points for determination are :-

(i). Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for partition of his 1/3 rd share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds, and for a declaration that the gift settlement deed dated 15.07.2025 vide Document No.556/2025 executed by Defendant No.2 in favour

O.S. No.01 of 2026 Page No.6 of 9

of Defendant No.1 is null and void and not binding on him as prayed for ?

(ii). To what relief ?

POINT No. i:-

7.Admittedly, the Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking partition of the suit schedule property and for declaration that the gift settlement deed vide document No.556/2025 dated 15.07.2025 is null and void and not binding on him. In order to substantiate the averments made in the plaint, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and filed his chief-examination affidavit, which is consistent with and reiterates the contents of the plaint.

Through PW1, documents marked as Exs.A1 to A14 were admitted into evidence. Exs.A1 to A13 are certified copies of pahanies pertaining to different years, and Ex.A14 is the legal notice dated 09.07.2025 issued by the Plaintiff.

8.The core contention of the Plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is a joint family property of himself and the Defendants, having succeeded from the deceased Ramindla Rajam, and that all of them are Class-I legal heirs governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. It is his specific case that Defendant Nos.1 and 2, in collusion with each other, have illegally executed a gift settlement deed in favour of Defendant No.1 excluding the

O.S. No.01 of 2026 Page No.7 of 9

lawful share of the Plaintiff, and thereby attempted to deprive him of his legitimate 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property.

9.At this stage, it is apposite to reiterate the settled legal position that, in a suit for partition, the burden lies upon the Plaintiff to establish that the suit property is joint family property and that he is entitled to a defined share therein. Once such jointness and entitlement are prima facie established, the onus shifts on the Defendants to rebut the same. Further, any unilateral alienation by one co-sharer, without consent of other co-sharers, does not bind their respective shares.

10.In the present case, the Plaintiff relied upon Exs.A1 to A13, being certified copies of pahanies for various years, and Ex.A14, being the legal notice. These documents prima facie indicate the existence of the property and the Plaintiff’s assertion of his right over the same. However, except these revenue records and notice, no document has been produced to conclusively establish that the suit schedule property is ancestral or joint family property or to clearly prove the extent of the Plaintiff’s share therein.

Though the Defendants remained ex-parte, the Plaintiff is still required to discharge his initial burden. Therefore, the evidence on record requires careful scrutiny to determine whether the Plaintiff has satisfactorily proved his entitlement to partition as claimed.

O.S. No.01 of 2026 Page No.8 of 9

11. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Plaintiff has failed to satisfactorily establish that the suit schedule property is a joint family property and that he is entitled to 1/3rd share therein. Except relying upon Exs.A1 to A13, being certified copies of pahanies, and Ex.A14, being a legal notice, no cogent or substantive documentary evidence has been placed before this Court to prove the nature of the property as ancestral or joint family property. The

Plaintiff has also not produced any title deeds or other relevant documents to establish the source of title or his lawful share in the suit schedule property.

Mere entries in revenue records are not sufficient to conclusively prove title or joint family nature of the property. Though the Defendants were set ex-parte, the burden still lies on the Plaintiff to prove his case by adducing reliable and convincing evidence. In the absence of such material evidence, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to discharge the initial burden cast upon him. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of partition as prayed for. Hence, this point is answered against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendants.

POINT No. ii:- To what relief?

12. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

O.S. No.01 of 2026 Page No.9 of 9

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 04 th day of May, 2026.

sd/-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

LUXETTIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

PW1: Ramindla Naresh. --None--

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1:Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1994-1995.

Ex.A2: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2002-2003.

Ex.A3: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2003-2004.

Ex.A4: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 204-2005.

Ex.A5: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 205-2006.

Ex.A6: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2006-2007.

Ex.A7: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2007-2008.

Ex.A8: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2008-2009.

Ex.A9:Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2009-2010.

Ex.A10: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2010-2011.

Ex.A11: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2011-2012.

Ex.A12: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2012-2013.

Ex.A13: Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2013-2014.

Ex.A14: Legal Notice, dated 09.07.2025.

For Defendants -- Nil --

sd/-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

LUXETTIPET.

OS/103/2025

Kota Shekar Goud vs Poludasari Saroja

04 May 2026

O.S. No.103 of 2025 Page No.1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT :: LUXETTIPET

PRESENT:- SRI SAI KIRAN KASAMALA Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet.

Monday, this the 04th day of May, 2026.

Original Suit No.103 of 2025

Between: Kota Shekar Goud, S/o: Raja Goud, Age: 35 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o: H.No.1-169 (1-171 old), Donabanda, R/M: Hazipur, Dist: Mancherial. …. Plaintiff

// AND //

1. Poludasari Saroja, W/o: Rajaiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: Godavarikhani, R/M: Ramagundam, Dist: Peddapalli.

2. Bethu Subhadra, W/o: Narsaiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: Fruits Vendor, R/o: Donabanda, R/M: Hazipur, Dist: Mancherial. …. Defendant Nos.1 and 2

This Suit is coming up before me today for final hearing, in the presence of Sri Ch. Uday Kiran, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendants Nos.1 and 2 are set ex-parte, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:-

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

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff under Order VII Rule 1 r/w. Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their men and servants from entering into and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

O.S. No.103 of 2025 Page No.2 of 8

2.The brief averments of the plaint in nutshell are :-

The Plaintiff submitted that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing No.1-169 (new), 1-171 (old), having a Bangalore tiled roof with a plinth area of 684.40 square feet, along with its backyard admeasuring Ac. 00-06 Guntas, in Survey No.266, situated at Donabanda

Village, Hazipur Mandal, Mancherial District. The Plaintiff further submitted that his father, namely Kota Raja Goud, was the original owner of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same from Ankam

Laxmaiah through a simple sale deed dated 20.08.1980 for valid sale consideration. It is further submitted that the said Kota Raja Goud died on 24.10.2011, leaving behind the Plaintiff, Kota Ramamma Laxmi, and

Thodeti Prameela as his Class-I legal heirs. After the death of Kota Raja

Goud, the Plaintiff continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, and subsequently, the wife and daughter of the said Kota

Raja Goud executed a Joint Right Release Deed vide document No.10251 of 2025, dated 01.09.2025, in favour of the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interference whatsoever from any person. The name of the Plaintiff has been duly mutated in the Gram Panchayat and revenue records, and he has been regularly paying the taxes to the concerned authorities. It is submitted that the Defendants have no manner of right, title, or interest over the suit schedule property, and are making unlawful attempts

O.S. No.103 of 2025 Page No.3 of 8

to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff with the assistance of their henchmen and local political leaders, taking advantage of the increasing value of the suit property. It is further submitted that the

Plaintiff has been resisting the illegal acts of the Defendants and their associates, and in that process, disputes have arisen between the Plaintiff and the Defendants when the Plaintiff obstructed their illegal activities with the support of neighbouring landowners. It is further submitted that the

Defendants, with an oblique and unlawful intention, hatched a plan to occupy the suit schedule property, and in furtherance of their illegal design, they, along with their henchmen, attempted to trespass into a portion of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that on 07.09.2025, when the Plaintiff was cleaning the backyard of the suit schedule property, the Defendants attempted to interfere with his possession; however, the workers of the

Plaintiff, with the assistance of neighbouring landowners, resisted the illegal acts of the Defendants in time. It is further submitted that, while leaving the suit schedule property, the Defendants openly declared that they would return, dispossess the Plaintiff, and occupy the property at any time, and also threatened the Plaintiff with dire consequences. The Plaintiff submitted that he is under a reasonable apprehension of being dispossessed at the hands of the Defendants. In this regard, the Plaintiff approached the police at Hazipur; however, the police advised him to approach the competent Civil Court, stating that the matter is civil in nature. The Plaintiff further submitted that

O.S. No.103 of 2025 Page No.4 of 8

he is unable to protect his possession and property without the aid and assistance of this Court. It is further submitted that the acts of the

Defendants are wholly illegal, unauthorized, and without any semblance of right over the suit schedule property. Hence, the Plaintiff is constrained to seek redressal before this Court. Hence, the suit.

3.Despite due service of summons, there was no representation on behalf of the Defendants. Consequently, Defendant No.2 was set ex-parte on 06.11.2025 and Defendant No.1 was set ex-parte on 27.04.2026. Thereafter, no petition has been filed to set aside the ex-parte orders.

4.During the course of trial, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined PW2. Through PW1, the following Exs.A1 to A11 documents were admitted into evidence:

i.Registered Right Release Deed No.10251/2025 dated 01.09.2025. (Ex.A1) ii.Property Tax Receipt No.45041, dated 31.01.2020. (Ex.A2) iii.Property Tax Receipt No.13116, dated 12.02.2021. (Ex.A3) iv.Property Tax Receipt No.11917, dated 30.07.2025. (Ex.A4) v.House Ownership Certificate No.D56/2025, dated 25.08.2025.

(Ex.A5) vi.Death Certificate No.GPV/19/2011, dated 13.11.2011. (Ex.A6) vii.Family Members Certificate vide RC. No.C/777/2023, dated 04.10.2023. (Ex.A7) viii.Electrical Bills (02). (Ex.A8)

O.S. No.103 of 2025 Page No.5 of 8

ix.Property Tax Receipt No.45347, dated 23.02.2018. (Ex.A9) x.Electrical Meter Connection, dated 10.11.2025. (Ex.A10) xi.Electrical Bill along with Online Receipt, dated 04.04.2025.

(Ex.A11)

5.Heard the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Perused the record.

6.Now the points for determination are :-

(i). Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their men and servants from entering into and interfering with the peaceful possession of

the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property, as prayed for?

(ii). To what relief ?

POINT No. i:-

7.Admittedly, the Plaintiff filed the present suit seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their men and servants from entering into and interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The Defendants, despite due service of summons, failed to appear before the Court and were set ex-parte. Hence, the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff remained unchallenged and unrebutted.

8.In order to substantiate the averments made in the plaint, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined PW2. PW1 filed his chief-examination affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint. Through

O.S. No.103 of 2025 Page No.6 of 8

PW1, Exs.A1 to A11 documents were admitted into evidence. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 has remained unshaken, as there was no cross-examination on behalf of the Defendants.

9.On careful appreciation of the material available on record, Ex.A1 –

Registered Right Release Deed establishes the title of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Exs.A2 to A4 and Ex.A9, being property tax receipts, along with Ex.A5 – House Ownership Certificate, and Ex.A8, Ex.A10 and

Ex.A11 – electrical bills and connection records, clearly demonstrate that the

Plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Further, Ex.A6 – Death Certificate and Ex.A7 – Family Members Certificate corroborate the succession of the Plaintiff to the property. The oral testimony of PW1 and PW2, coupled with the documentary evidence, clearly proves that the Plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit schedule property and that the Defendants have no manner of right over the same, but are attempting to interfere with his possession.

10.It is a settled principle of law that in a suit for perpetual injunction, the

Plaintiff must establish his lawful and peaceful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, and mere title alone is not sufficient. In the present case, the Plaintiff has successfully established his possession through cogent oral and documentary evidence. Ex.A1 to

Ex.A11 clearly demonstrates not only his title but also his continuous

O.S. No.103 of 2025 Page No.7 of 8

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The evidence of

PW1, which is duly corroborated by PW2, further strengthens the case of the

Plaintiff. It is also pertinent to note that the Defendants, despite due service of summons, failed to appear and contest the matter and were set ex-parte, and thus the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff remains unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the Plaintiff.

11.In view of the foregoing discussion and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Plaintiff has successfully proved his lawful and peaceful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

The Plaintiff has also established that the Defendants have no manner of right, title, or interest over the suit schedule property and that they are attempting to interfere with his possession. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.

POINT No. ii:- To what relief?

12.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs, granting perpetual injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, restraining the Defendant Nos.1 and 2, their men and servants from entering into and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

O.S. No.103 of 2025 Page No.8 of 8

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 04 th day of May, 2026.

sd/-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

LUXETTIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

PW1: Kota Shekar Goud. --None-- PW2: Malraj Venkateshwar Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1:Registered Right Release Deed No.10251/2025, dated 01.09.2025.

Ex.A2: Property Tax Receipt No.45041, dated 31.01.2020.

Ex.A3: Property Tax Receipt No.13116, dated 12.02.2021.

Ex.A4: Property Tax Receipt No.11917, dated 30.07.2025.

Ex.A5: House Ownershiop Certificate No.D56/2025, dated 25.08.2025.

Ex.A6: Death Certificate No.GPV/19/2011, dated 13.11.2011.

Ex.A7: Family Members Certificate vide RC. No.C/777/2023, dated 04.10.2023.

Ex.A8: Electrical Bills (02).

Ex.A9:Property Tax Receipt No.45347, dated 23.02.2018.

Ex.A10: Electrical Meter Connection, dated 10.11.2025.

Ex.A11: Electrical Bill along with Online Receipt, dated 04.04.2025.

For Defendants -- Nil --

sd/-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

LUXETTIPET.

OS/16/2025

Noundla Swapna, W/o. Santhosh Chary vs Nalumasu Purnachander, S/o. Vaikuntam

04 May 2026

O.S. No.16 of 2025 Page No.1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT :: LUXETTIPET

PRESENT:- SRI SAI KIRAN KASAMALA Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet.

Monday, this the 04th day of May, 2026.

Original Suit No.16 of 2025

Between:

Noundla Swapna, W/o: Santhosh Chary, Age: 42 years, Occ: Household, R/o: H.No.8-167/1, Vidya Nagar, Naspur, R/M: Naspur, Dist: Mancherial. …. Plaintiff

// AND //

1. Nalumasu Purnachander, S/o: Vaikuntam, Age: 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.2-238, Seetharampuram, Karimnagar Mandal and District.

2. Gadasu Ramesh, S/o: Chinnaiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Thimmapur Village of Luxettipet Mandal, Dist: Mancherial. …. Defendant Nos.1 and 2

This Suit is coming up before me today for final hearing, in the presence of Sri Rangu Mallesh, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are set ex-parte, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:-

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

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking partition and separate possession of her share in the residential open plot admeasuring 242 square yards in Survey No.285 situated at Uthkoor

O.S. No.16 of 2025 Page No.2 of 8

Village, Luxettipet Mandal, Mancherial District (hereinafter referred to as the “suit schedule property”).

2.The brief averments of the plaint in nutshell are :-

The Plaintiff submits that she is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the residential open plot admeasuring 242 square yards in

Survey No.285 situated at Uthkoor Village Luxettipet Mandal, Mancherial

District, having acquired the same under a Registered Sale Deed

No.711/2022, dated 23.04.2022, duly registered at SRO, Luxettipet. Since the date of purchase, she has been in continuous and peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff purchased an extent of 50% share in the suit schedule property from her vendor, who is Defendant No.1 herein, while Defendant No.2 is the owner of the remaining 50% share therein. The Plaintiff submits that

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had originally purchased the entire residential open plot admeasuring 484 square yards in Survey No.285, situated at Uthkoor

Village, Luxettipet Mandal, Mancherial District, under Registered Sale Deed

No.6454/2005, dated 14.09.2005, and had been in uninterrupted joint possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further submitted that Defendant

No.1, owing to his family financial necessities, alienated his 50% share in the suit schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff for valid sale consideration through a registered conveyance. The Plaintiff submits that,

O.S. No.16 of 2025 Page No.3 of 8

reposing trust and confidence in both the Defendants, she did not insist upon partition of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds at the time of purchase. Subsequently, she approached the concerned authorities at SRO,

Luxettipet, for mutation, and accordingly, a certificate of transfer/mutation was issued vide Letter No.1902-T-711/2022. Since then, the Plaintiff has been in continuous, peaceful possession and enjoyment of her share in the suit schedule property. The Plaintiff further submits that, when she intended to develop her share of the property by constructing a residential building, she approached Defendant Nos.1 and 2 requesting partition of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds so as to enable her to obtain necessary permissions from the competent authorities. It is submitted that the Plaintiff made a specific demand for partition of her share on 25.01.2025. However, the Defendants failed to respond positively.

Thereafter, the matter was placed before the elders of the family on 30.01.2025, but even then, the Defendants did not heed their advice. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff submits that she is constrained to file the present suit seeking partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.

3.Inspite of service of summons and paper publication, there is no representation on behalf of the Defendants. Hence, the Defendant Nos.1

O.S. No.16 of 2025 Page No.4 of 8

and 2 were set ex-parte on 05.03.2026. Thereafter no petition was filed to set aside the ex-parte order.

4.During the course of the trial, the Plaintiff got examined herself as

PW1. Through PW1, the following Exs.A1 to A3 documents were admitted into evidence.

i. Original Sale Deed No.711/2022, dated 23.04.2022. (Ex.A1) ii. Original Mutation/Transfer Certificate, dated 02.05.2022. (Ex.A2) iii. Original Market Value, dated 30.01.2025. (Ex.A3)

5. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Perused the record.

6.Now the points for determination are :-

(i). Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for ?

(ii). To what relief ?

POINT No. i:-

7.Admittedly, the Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. To substantiate the averments made in the plaint, the Plaintiff examined herself as PW1. PW1 filed her chief-examination affidavit, which is consistent with and reiterates the entire contents of the plaint. Through PW1, documents marked as

Exs.A1 to A3 were admitted into evidence. Ex.A1 is the original Sale Deed

No.711/2022, dated 23.04.2022, under which Defendant No.1 sold his 50% share in the suit schedule property to the Plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the original

O.S. No.16 of 2025 Page No.5 of 8

Mutation/Transfer Certificate, dated 02.05.2022, issued by the Government of Telangana, evidencing transfer of the suit schedule property from the transferor (Defendant No.1) to the transferee (Plaintiff). Ex.A3 is the original Market Value Certificate, dated 30.01.2025.

8.The core contention of the Plaintiff is that she is the co-owner of the suit schedule property to the extent of 50% share, having acquired the same through a valid registered sale deed, and that despite repeated demands, the

Defendants have failed to effect partition of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds. Hence, the Plaintiff is entitled to seek partition and separate possession of her lawful share through due process of law.

9. At this stage, it is apposite to reiterate the settled legal position that, in a suit for partition and separate possession, the burden squarely lies on the

Plaintiff to establish her lawful title and co-ownership over the suit schedule property, as well as her entitlement to claim partition and separate possession of her defined share therein.

10. In the present case, the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff are

Exs.A1 to A3, namely the Sale Deed, Mutation/Transfer Certificate, and

Market Value Certificate. The said documents substantiate her claim of acquisition of a 50% share in the suit schedule property and her consequent entitlement to seek partition and separate possession. These documents

O.S. No.16 of 2025 Page No.6 of 8

reflect the transfer of share in favour of the Plaintiff and her possession thereof.

11. It is also relevant to note the settled position of law under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, that a co-owner is competent to transfer his share or interest in a joint immovable property, and the transferee steps into the shoes of the transferor and acquires the same rights as that of the transferor, including the right to seek partition.

12. Further, in Ramdas v. Sitabai 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a purchaser cannot acquire a better title than what the vendor possessed, and in the absence of partition, the purchaser cannot claim exclusive possession over any specific portion of the joint property, but is only entitled to seek partition and separate possession of the share purchased.

13. In a suit for partition, the primary requirement is proof of co-ownership and entitlement to a definite share in the suit schedule property. In the present case, the Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that she purchased a 50% share in the suit schedule property from Defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed. The said fact is duly supported by Ex.A1 –

Registered Sale Deed No.711/2022. Further, Ex.A2 – Mutation/Transfer

Certificate corroborates the transfer of interest in favour of the Plaintiff, and

Ex.A3 reflects the valuation of the property.

1 (2009) 7 SCC 444

O.S. No.16 of 2025 Page No.7 of 8

14. It is a settled principle of law that a co-owner is always entitled to seek partition, unless there exists a legal bar. The Plaintiff has established her co-ownership through a registered document, which carries presumptive evidentiary value. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the

Defendants, who were set ex-parte, the testimony of PW1 and the documentary evidence remain unchallenged and unrebutted.

15. Further, in partition suits, it is not mandatory for the Plaintiff to prove denial of title or impossibility of joint enjoyment as a strict requirement. The mere assertion of separate possession and demand for partition constitutes a sufficient cause of action. The Plaintiff has also pleaded prior demand and the failure of the Defendants to effect partition, which further strengthens her case.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the Plaintiff has successfully established her co-ownership and entitlement to a 50% share in the suit schedule property. Consequently, she is entitled to the relief of partition and separate possession as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.

POINT No. ii:- To what relief ?

17. In the result, the suit is decreed preliminarily in favour of the

Plaintiff, declaring her entitlement to partition of the suit schedule property

O.S. No.16 of 2025 Page No.8 of 8

into two equal shares and to separate possession of her half share by metes and bounds.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 04 th day of May, 2026.

sd/-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

LUXETTIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1: Noundla Swapna. --None--

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1:Original Sale Deed No.711/2022, dated 23.04.2022.

Ex.A2: Original Mutation/Transfer Certificate, dated 02.05.2022.

Ex.A3: Original Market Value, dated 30.01.2025.

For Defendants: -- Nil --

sd/-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

LUXETTIPET.

OS/37/2025

Ankathi Nagaraju vs Chunchu Mogili

07 May 2026

O.S. No.37 of 2025 Page No.1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT :: LUXETTIPET

PRESENT:- SRI SAI KIRAN KASAMALA Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet.

Thursday, this the 07th day of May, 2026.

Original Suit No.37 of 2025

Between:-

Ankathi Nagaraju, S/o: Lingaiah, Age: 39 years, Occ: GovernmentEmployee,R/o:H.No.6-78/1, Ankathiwada, Luxettipet of Mancherial District.

...Plaintiff

// AND //

Chunchu Mogili, S/o: Rajaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture/Business, R/o: Near Old G.P. Office, Itikyal Village, R/M: Luxettipet of Mancherial District. ….Defendant

This Suit is coming up before me today, for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Kiran Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant is set ex-parte and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:-

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

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,99,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand only) along with future interest at the rate of 1% per month from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

2.The brief averments of the plaint in nutshell are :-

O.S. No.37 of 2025 Page No.2 of 7

The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant is well acquainted with him and, taking advantage of such acquaintance, the Defendant approached him in the month of January, 2024 and requested him to advance a hand loan of

Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) for his family necessities. Considering the request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the Defendant on 24.01.2024. After receipt of the said amount, the

Defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff in the presence of witnesses namely Ankathi Mahesh and Mamindla Suresh, agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest @ 1% per month on demand. The Plaintiff further submits that, when he was in need of the said amount, he demanded the Defendant to repay the loan amount, but the

Defendant went on dodging the matter and failed to repay the said amount till date. The Plaintiff further submits that he got issued a legal notice dated 18.02.2025 demanding the Defendant to discharge the debt amount. Though the said notice was duly served on the Defendant, he neither paid the debt amount nor issued any reply notice. The conduct of the Defendant clearly establishes that he intentionally failed and neglected to repay the hand loan amount together with accrued interest till date. Left with no other alternative and vexed with the attitude of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was constrained to institute the present suit for recovery of money. The Plaintiff

O.S. No.37 of 2025 Page No.3 of 7

submits that the Defendant is liable to pay a total amount of Rs.3,99,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand only) to him, out of which

Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) constitutes the

principal amount and Rs.49,000/- (Rupees Forty Nine Thousand only)

constitutes the interest calculated @ 1% per month for the period from 24.01.2024 to 24.03.2025, i.e., for 14 months. Hence, the suit.

3.Inspite of service of summons, there is no representation on behalf of the Defendant. Hence, the Defendant was set ex-parte on 25.07.2025.

Thereafter no petition was filed to set aside the ex-parte order.

4.During the course of trial, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got examined PW2. Through PW1, documents marked as Exs.A1 to A3 were admitted into evidence i.e, i.Original Promissory Note. (Ex.A1) ii.Legal Notice. (Ex.A2) iii.Postal Receipt. (Ex.A3)

5.Heard the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is:-

i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of money of Rs.3,99,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand only) from the Defendant as prayed for?

ii) To what relief?

O.S. No.37 of 2025 Page No.4 of 7

POINT No.i:-

7.Admittedly, the Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of

Rs.3,99,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand only) from the

Defendant, along with future interest at the rate of 1% per month from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

8.The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant, being well acquainted with him, approached him in the month of January, 2024 and requested for a hand loan of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) for his family necessities. Believing the words of the Defendant and considering their acquaintance, the Plaintiff advanced a sum of

Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the Defendant on 24.01.2024. After receipt of the said amount, the Defendant executed

Ex.A1–Original Promissory Note in favour of the Plaintiff in the presence of attestors agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest at the rate of 1% per month on demand. Thereafter, despite repeated demands made by the Plaintiff, the Defendant failed to repay the amount and went on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Subsequently, the

Plaintiff got issued Ex.A2–Legal Notice dated 18.02.2025 demanding the

Defendant to discharge the debt amount, and Ex.A3–Postal Receipt evidences dispatch of the said notice. Though the notice was duly served on

O.S. No.37 of 2025 Page No.5 of 7

the Defendant, he neither repaid the amount nor issued any reply. Hence, the present suit came to be filed for recovery of the suit amount.

9.In order to substantiate his case, the Plaintiff examined himself as

PW1 and also examined PW2. The oral evidence of PW1 clearly establishes that the Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs

Fifty Thousand only) from him on 24.01.2024 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 1% per month.

PW2, being an attestor to Ex.A1, also supported the case of the Plaintiff in all material particulars. The testimony of Pws 1 and 2 remained unchallenged as the Defendant failed to contest the matter and was set ex-parte.

10.On perusal of Ex.A1, it clearly discloses that the Defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff for valuable consideration. Ex.A2 legal notice and Ex.A3 postal receipt further corroborate the case of the Plaintiff that prior to filing of the suit, a demand was made upon the Defendant to repay the debt amount, but the Defendant failed to comply with the same. Further, despite service of summons and also legal notice, the Defendant neither chosen to contest the matter nor placed any material before this Court to disprove the claim of the Plaintiff.

Hence, an adverse inference can safely be drawn against the Defendant.

O.S. No.37 of 2025 Page No.6 of 7

11.The evidence adduced by the Plaintiff, both oral and documentary, remained cogent, consistent and trustworthy. There are no reasons to disbelieve the case of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff successfully proved the borrowing of amount by the Defendant and execution of Ex.A1 promissory note. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.3,99,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs

Ninety Nine Thousand only) from the Defendant together with future interest. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

Point No.ii:- To what relief?

12.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs and the Defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,99,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Nine

Thousand only) along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum adjudged. The Defendant shall pay the aforesaid amount within two (02) months from the date of Judgment, failing which the Plaintiff shall be at liberty to proceed against the

Defendant for execution of decree as per law.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07 th day of May, 2026.

sd/-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

LUXETTIPET.

O.S. No.37 of 2025 Page No.7 of 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:-

PW1: Ankathi Nagaraju. --None-- PW2: Mamindla Suresh.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1:Original Promissory Note.

Ex.A2: Legal Notice.

Ex.A3: Postal Receipt.

For Defendant:- -- Nil --

sd/-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

LUXETTIPET.

OS/38/2025

Ankathi Lingaiah vs Chunchu Mogili

07 May 2026

O.S. No.38 of 2025 Page No.1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT :: LUXETTIPET

PRESENT:- SRI SAI KIRAN KASAMALA Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet.

Thursday, this the 07th day of May, 2026.

Original Suit No.38 of 2025

Between:-

Ankathi Lingaiah, S/o: Ramaiah, Age: 64 years, Occ: Retired SCCL Employee, R/o: H.No.6-78/1, Ankathiwada, Luxettipet of Mancherial District.

...Plaintiff

// AND //

Chunchu Mogili, S/o: Rajaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture/Business, R/o: Near Old G.P. Office, Itikyal Village, R/M: Luxettipet of Mancherial District. ….Defendant

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

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand only) along with future interest at the rate of 2% per month from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

2.The brief averments of the plaint in nutshell are :-

O.S. No.38 of 2025 Page No.2 of 7

The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant is well acquainted with him and, taking advantage of such acquaintance, the Defendant approached him in the month of May, 2024 and requested him to advance a hand loan of

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) for his family necessities.

Considering the request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff advanced a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the Defendant on 28.05.2024.

After receipt of the said amount, the Defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff in the presence of witnesses namely Kasu Pradeep and Rasabathula Madhu, agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest @ 2% per month on demand. The Plaintiff further submits that, when he was in need of the said amount, he demanded the Defendant to repay the loan amount, but the Defendant went on dodging the matter and failed to repay the said amount till date. The Plaintiff further submits that he got issued a legal notice dated 18.02.2025 demanding the Defendant to discharge the debt amount. Though the said notice was duly served on the

Defendant, he neither paid the debt amount nor issued any reply notice. The conduct of the Defendant clearly establishes that he intentionally failed and neglected to repay the hand loan amount together with accrued interest till date. Left with no other alternative and vexed with the attitude of the

Defendant, the Plaintiff was constrained to institute the present suit for recovery of money. The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant is liable to pay

O.S. No.38 of 2025 Page No.3 of 7

a total amount of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand only) to him, out of which Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) constitutes the principal amount and Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) constitutes the interest calculated @ 2% per month for the period from 28.05.2024 to 28.03.2025, i.e., for 10 months. Hence, the suit.

3.Inspite of service of summons, there is no representation on behalf of the Defendant. Hence, the Defendant was set ex-parte on 25.07.2025.

Thereafter no petition was filed to set aside the ex-parte order.

5.Heard the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is:-

i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of money of

Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand only) from the Defendant as prayed for?

ii) To what relief?

O.S. No.38 of 2025 Page No.4 of 7

POINT No.i:-

7.Admittedly, the Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of

Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand only) from the

Defendant, along with future interest at the rate of 2% per month from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

8.The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant, being well acquainted with him, approached him in the month of May, 2024 and requested for a hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) for his family necessities. Believing the words of the Defendant and considering their acquaintance, the Plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three

Lakhs only) to the Defendant on 28.05.2024. After receipt of the said amount, the Defendant executed Ex.A1-Original Promissory Note in favour of the Plaintiff in the presence of attestors agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest at the rate of 2% per month on demand.

Thereafter, despite repeated demands made by the Plaintiff, the Defendant failed to repay the amount and went on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Subsequently, the Plaintiff got issued Ex.A2–Legal

Notice dated 18.02.2025 demanding the Defendant to discharge the debt amount, and Ex.A3–Postal Receipt evidences dispatch of the said notice.

Though the notice was duly served on the Defendant, he neither repaid the

O.S. No.38 of 2025 Page No.5 of 7

amount nor issued any reply. Hence, the present suit came to be filed for recovery of the suit amount.

9.In order to substantiate his case, the Plaintiff examined himself as

PW1 and also examined PW2. The oral evidence of PW1 clearly establishes that the Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) from him on 28.05.2024 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 2% per month. PW2, being an attestor to Ex.A1, also supported the case of the Plaintiff in all material particulars. The testimony of PWs 1 and 2 remained unchallenged as the

Defendant failed to contest the matter and was set ex-parte.

Hence, an adverse inference can safely be drawn against the Defendant.

O.S. No.38 of 2025 Page No.6 of 7

Sixty Thousand only) from the Defendant together with future interest.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

Point No.ii:- To what relief?

12.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs and the Defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty

Defendant for execution of decree as per law.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07 th day of May, 2026.

sd/-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

LUXETTIPET.

O.S. No.38 of 2025 Page No.7 of 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:-

PW1: Ankathi Lingaiah. --None-- PW2: Rasabathula Madhu.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1:Original Promissory Note.

Ex.A2: Legal Notice.

Ex.A3: Postal Receipt.

For Defendant:- -- Nil --

sd/-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

LUXETTIPET.

Order Record 1,386 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
STC/143/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Luxettipet vs Macharla Santhosh, S/o. Sathaiah	11 May 2026	order	—
STC/144/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Jannaram vs Sadhuvula Ramulu, S/o. Sailu	11 May 2026	order	—
STC/145/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Jannaram vs Shaik Kareem, S/o. Zameed	11 May 2026	order	—
STC/146/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Jannaram vs MD. Sadhik, S/o. Rehaman	11 May 2026	order	—
OS/37/2025	Ankathi Nagaraju vs Chunchu Mogili	07 May 2026	judgment	—
OS/38/2025	Ankathi Lingaiah vs Chunchu Mogili	07 May 2026	judgment	—
STC/10/2025	State of Telangana through PS. Luxettipet vs Dummani Bhanaiah, S/o. Lingaiah	07 May 2026	order	—
STC/142/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Hajipur vs Bore Laxman, S/o. Mallaiah	06 May 2026	order	—
OS/1/2026	Ramindla Naresh vs Ramilla alias Ramindla Madhunaiah	04 May 2026	judgment	—
OS/16/2025	Noundla Swapna, W/o. Santhosh Chary vs Nalumasu Purnachander, S/o. Vaikuntam	04 May 2026	judgment	—
OS/37/2016	Mamidi Rukkamma and 3 others vs Penta Mallaiah and another	04 May 2026	order	—
OS/103/2025	Kota Shekar Goud vs Poludasari Saroja	04 May 2026	judgment	—
CC/78/2020	State of Telangana SHO PS Hajipur vs Gollapalli Mahender	04 May 2026	judgment	—
CC/279/2019	SHO PS Dandepally vs Manthena Thirupathi @ Nani	04 May 2026	judgment	—
STC/136/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Akkala Kiran, S/o. Chandraiah	04 May 2026	order	—
STC/137/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Chunchu Thirupathi, S/o. Bhojaiah	04 May 2026	order	—
STC/138/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Jannaram vs Jakkula Ushanna, S/o. Rajanna	04 May 2026	order	—
STC/139/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Jannaram vs Kamera Rajeswar, S/o. Rajalingam,	04 May 2026	order	—
STC/140/2026	State of Telangana through Ps. Jannaram vs Kurre Mallesh, S/o. Gangaiah	04 May 2026	order	—
STC/141/2026	State of Telangana through ps. Jannaram vs Chelloju Pavan,S/o. Srinivas,	04 May 2026	order	—
OS/25/2018	The Telangana Grameena Bank, Branch Luxettipet, Rep. by is Branch Manager Potluri Vijaya Kumar, S/o vs Perugu Thirupathi	01 May 2026	judgment	—
OS/26/2017	Cheruku Rajaiah vs Gudepu Narayana	01 May 2026	judgment	—
OS/26/2018	Telangana Grameena Bank, Luxettipet vs Perugu Chandramma	01 May 2026	judgment	—
OS/28/2018	Mothe Narsing Rao vs Mothe Posavva	01 May 2026	judgment	—
STC/134/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Bandari Gangamma, W/o. Chinnanna	29 Apr 2026	order	—
STC/135/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Kummari Sathaiah, S/o. Lingaiah	29 Apr 2026	order	—
STC/133/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Jannaram vs Gudise Rajanna, S/o. Peddulu	28 Apr 2026	order	—
CC/26/2018	Station House Officer, PS Hajipur vs Dega Anjaiah	24 Apr 2026	judgment	—
CC/94/2019	SHO PS Hajipur vs A1) Ginne Vinod Kumar and 2 others	24 Apr 2026	judgment	—
CC/260/2018	SHO, P.S., Hazipur vs Kota Raja Goud	24 Apr 2026	judgment	—
STC/132/2026	State of Telangana through Station House Officer, Police Station Jannaram vs Pallikonda Rajanna, S/o. Peddanna	24 Apr 2026	order	—
STC/130/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Kova Srinivas, S/o. Somu	23 Apr 2026	order	—
STC/131/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Jannaram vs Gopal Gulab Beldar, S/o. Gulab Singh	23 Apr 2026	order	—
CC/247/2017	Gunda Bhumaiah vs Jakku Venkateshwarluy	20 Apr 2026	judgment	—
CC/248/2017	Gunda Bhumaiah vs Jakku Venkateshwarlu	20 Apr 2026	judgment	—
STC/129/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Gavvala Srinivas, S/o. Shankar	17 Apr 2026	order	—
OS/41/2018	Eggadi Rajanna vs Eggadi Mallaiah alias Mallesh	16 Apr 2026	judgment	—
CC/76/2020	State of Telangana SHO PS Hajipur vs Vsbanda Ravi Kumar	16 Apr 2026	judgment	—
CC/242/2019	SHO PS Hajipur vs A1) Odde Balaraju and 14 others	16 Apr 2026	judgment	—
STC/128/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Luxettipet vs Saini Shankar, S/o. Pochaiah	16 Apr 2026	order	—
CC/274/2019	SHO PS Luxettipet vs Punem Srinivas	10 Apr 2026	judgment	—
CC/308/2022	State of Telangana through ps LUXETTIPET vs MOHAMMAD RAJEEB ALI @ RAJABELLI	10 Apr 2026	judgment	—
STC/124/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Jula Lingaiah, S/o. Ashaiah	09 Apr 2026	order	—
STC/125/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Vemunuri Srinivas, S/o. Shankaraiah	09 Apr 2026	order	—
STC/126/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Hajipur vs Gajjala Sampath, S/o. Ramesh,	09 Apr 2026	order	—
STC/127/2026	State of Telangana through PS. jananram vs Bollempalli Saidulu, S/o. Shankaraiah	09 Apr 2026	order	—
DVC/3/2020	Karnala @ Punnam Avanthika @ Avanthi and another vs Punnam Srinivas and 2 others	08 Apr 2026	order	—
STC/123/2026	State of Telangana thorugh PS. Dandepalli vs Mudithe Ramesh, S./o. Narsaiah	08 Apr 2026	order	—
STC/602/2024	State of Telangana, Ps. Luxettipet vs Thippani Shekhar, S/o. Venkatesh	07 Apr 2026	order	—
STC/604/2024	State of Telangana, PS. Luxettipet vs Gorre Surender @ Andru, S/o. Suraiah	07 Apr 2026	order	—
OS/50/2021	Nerella Laxmirajam vs Nerella Veeramallaiah	06 Apr 2026	order	—
STC/122/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Hajipur vs Mudam Punnam Chand, S/o. Ramulu	06 Apr 2026	order	—
STC/121/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Janjampalli Sravan, S/o. Bhumaiah	02 Apr 2026	order	—
STC/120/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Darshanala Mahesh, S/o. LInganna	01 Apr 2026	order	—
OS/89/2021	Koppula Linga Reddy vs D1) Koppua Laxmamma @ Laxmi	31 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/30/2026	State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Luxettipet. vs Akula Shankaraiah, S/o. Jaggaiah	30 Mar 2026	judgment	—
CC/36/2026	State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Luxettipet. vs Uthkoori Mogili, S/o. Muthaiah.	30 Mar 2026	judgment	—
STC/117/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Jetpet Bheemanna, S/o. Yellaiah	30 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/118/2026	State of Telangana through PSHajipur vs Katkuri Bhoomaiah, S/o. Pochaiah	30 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/119/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Hajipur vs Godisala Praveen, S/o. Venkati	30 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/106/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Choppadandi Thirupathi, S/o. Nagaiah	28 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/107/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Soyamesh, S/o. Jangu	28 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/108/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Shivaratri Vishnu, S/o. Mujjanna	28 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/109/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Luxettipet vs Kutikela Thirupathi, S/o. Pochalingu	28 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/110/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Jannaram vs Shaik Ushman Pasha, S/o. Chand Pasha	28 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/111/2026	State of Telangana through Ps. Dandepalli vs Nusavath Naresh, S/o. Nandayak,	28 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/112/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Hajipur vs Jakkula Sunand, S/o. Ramulu	28 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/113/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Hajipur vs Dasari Srinivas, S/o. Laxmi Narayana	28 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/114/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Hajipur vs Thokala Venkatesh, S/o. Lingaiah	28 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/115/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Hajipur vs Chunchu Thirupathi, S/o. Rajaiah	28 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/116/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Sogala Sudhakar, S/o. Ashalu	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/22/2026	State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Luxettipet vs Badavath Puran Bai, W/o. Dudiram	26 Mar 2026	judgment	—
STC/103/2026	State of Telangana through Station House Officer, Police Station, Hajipur. vs Baiaragi Sai, S/o. Rajaiah	26 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/104/2026	State of Telangana Through PS. Luxettipet vs Kalyanapu Anjaiah, S/o. Shankaraiah	26 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/105/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Hajipur vs Aluvala Venkatesh, S/o. Lingaiah	26 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/25/2026	State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Luxettipet. vs Banavath Neela, W/o. Reddy.	25 Mar 2026	judgment	—
CC/33/2026	State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Luxettipet. vs Nimmala Uma, W/o. Sathaiah.	25 Mar 2026	judgment	—
CC/38/2026	State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Luxettipet. vs Kedike Bulaxmi, W/o. Venkati	25 Mar 2026	judgment	—
CC/42/2026	State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Luxettipet. vs Palthe Prashanth, S/o. Sudhakar.	25 Mar 2026	judgment	—
STC/88/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Malyala Srinivas, S/o. Rajaiah	25 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/89/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Avunuri Prashanth, S/o. Mallaiah	25 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/90/2026	State of Telangana thorugh PS. Dandepalli vs Reddaveni Sai, S/o. Bheemanna	25 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/91/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Luxettipet vs Aggu Rajanna, S/o. Lachanna	25 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/92/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Luxettipet vs PUlugam Sathyanarayana, S/o. Pochamallu	25 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/93/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Luxettipet vs Bhumaiah T, S/o. Rajaiah	25 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/94/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Luxettipet vs Buchanna Karukuri, S/o. Lingaiah	25 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/95/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Luxettipet vs Maddela Venkatesh, S/o. Rajaiah	25 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/96/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Luxettipet vs Chella Thirupathi, S/o. Chendraiah	25 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/97/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Luxettipet vs Patha Komuraiah, S/o. Lasmaiah	25 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/98/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Luxettipet vs Mahesh Kandrapu, S/o. Poshanna	25 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/99/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Luxettipet vs Embadi Nagesh, S/o. Lingaiah,	25 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/100/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Kudimetha Ramesh, S/o. Somu	25 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/101/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Dandepalli vs Durgam Thirupathi, S/o. Linganna	25 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/102/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Hajipur vs Moinuddin Mohammad, S/o. Ankus	25 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/46/2026	State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Luxettipet. vs Paltiya Reddy, S/o. Late Harilal.	24 Mar 2026	judgment	—
STC/83/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Luxettipet vs Pettem Ramesh, S/o. Rajaiah	24 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/84/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Luxettipet vs Merugu Rajalingu, S/o. Mallaiah	24 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/85/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Hajipur vs Sjale Dastagiri, S/o. Faqruddin	24 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/86/2026	State of Telangana through PS. Hajipur vs Thoutam Vinay, S/o. Rajaiah	24 Mar 2026	order	—
STC/87/2026	State of Telangana through Station House Officer, Police Station, Hajipur. vs Kampelli Sharath, S/o. Gattaiah.	24 Mar 2026	order	—

Showing 100 of 1,386 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		24
Apr 2026		30
Mar 2026		112
Feb 2026		29
Jan 2026		58
Dec 2025		106
Nov 2025		161
Oct 2025		87
Sep 2025		369
Aug 2025		98
Jul 2025		137
Jun 2025		231

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Mr. SAI KIRAN KASAMALA handled?

Mr. SAI KIRAN KASAMALA has handled 1444 court orders since 2025 at Luxettipet, JCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 112 orders per month.

What types of cases does Mr. SAI KIRAN KASAMALA hear?

Based on available records, Mr. SAI KIRAN KASAMALA primarily handles Criminal matters (Summary Trial Cases, Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Luxettipet, JCJ Court Complex.

Where is Mr. SAI KIRAN KASAMALA currently posted?

Mr. SAI KIRAN KASAMALA is posted as Junior Civil Judge at Luxettipet, JCJ Court Complex, Mancherial, Telangana.

Are judgments by Mr. SAI KIRAN KASAMALA available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Mr. SAI KIRAN KASAMALA are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Mr. SAI KIRAN KASAMALA dispose cases?

Mr. SAI KIRAN KASAMALA disposes approximately 112 cases per month, based on 1444 orders handled over their tenure at Luxettipet, JCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Mr. SAI KIRAN KASAMALA serving?

Mr. SAI KIRAN KASAMALA has been serving at Luxettipet, JCJ Court Complex since 2025. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

STC 64%

CC 25%

OS 9%

PRC 2%

DVC 0%

EP 0%

Posting History

May 2025 — Present

Junior Civil Judge · 1,444 orders

← View all judges at Luxettipet, JCJ Court Complex