Sri T.venkateswarlu

O.S.22/2026 1 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram

CNR.No.APAN0D0000592026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

DHARMAVARAM.

PRESENT:- T. Venkateswarlu,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharmavaram.

Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Original Suit No. 22/2026

Between Chakali Raju, S/o Chakali Ramanna @ Sakali Ramanna, aged about 30 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, Residing at D.No.2/30, Kalyandurgam Road, Banukota Village, Maddalacheruvu Revenue Village, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai Disdtrict. …Plaintiff

And

1. Chakali Muthyalu, S/o Late C.Pullanna, aged about 45 years, Business, Residing at Rudrampeta Bypass, 2nd Cross, Anantapuramu.

2. Palla Daivadinam, S/o Late P.Thippanna, aged about 60 years, Hindu

3. Palla Yuvaraju, S/o P.Daivadinam, aged about 35 years, Hindu

Both D.2 and D.3 are residing at Pallelolla Sandu, Bhanukota Village, H/o Maddalacheruvu, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. …Defendants

This suit has come before me on 28.04.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri D.Vijaya Raghavendra, Smt. J.Sumalatha, Sri M.Narasimha Murthy, Sri M.Peddanna, Kum. J.V.Ramya Likitha, Advocates for the plaintiff; and the suit against 1st defendant was dismissed as not pressed; defendants 2 and 3 remained exparte; upon perusing the entire material

O.S.22/2026 2 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram available on record; having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff to declare title of plaintiff over suit schedule property, direct defendants to deliver property which they occupied some portion illegally in S.No.477 to plaintiff, if defendants failed to do so, same may be through court of law, award costs of suit.

2.Case of plaintiff is that suit schedule property situated in village field limits of Maddalacheruvu, Kanaganapalli Mandal in S.No.477 to an extent of Ac.12.90 cents and S.No.482 to an extent of Ac.15.51 cents out of it

Ac.3.00cents was originally belongs to one Chakali Lakshmamma, W/o

Late C.Pullanna, during her lifetime she had been in possession, enjoyment of same. During her lifetime, said C.Lakshmamma out of love and affection towards her grandson that is plaintiff, had with free will and volition voluntarily executed a Will in favour of plaintiff on 21.03.2025 bequeathing suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff in sound state of mind, that will came into force after her demise. Said C.Lakshmamma died on 27.03.2025, after her death plaintiff had taken possession without any hindrance, he became absolute owner of suit schedule property, he is in peaceful possession, enjoyment of suit schedule property as per testament of testator. After death of said C.Lakshmamma Will came into force after that taken possession, approached revenue authorities for mutation of his name in concerned revenue records with regard to suit schedule property, at that time plaintiff came to know about illegal revenue entries of

O.S.22/2026 3 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram defendants, plaintiff questioned revenue authorities about illegal entries regarding suit schedule property, they did not respondent properly, not delete illegal entries, finally they suggested plaintiff to declare his title through competent civil court, after that only they mutate name of plaintiff in revenue records. While it was so defendants taking advantage of illegal entries in their names in revenue records, recently forcibly occupied some portion of land in S.No.477 to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents out of Ac.12.90 cents on Northern side of said S.No. in suit schedule property and plaintiff is in peaceful possession, enjoyment of remaining extent in this S.No.Ac.7.90 cents and also in another S.No.482 to an extent of Ac.15.51 cents out of it

Ac.3.00 cents and also defendants denying very title of plaintiff over suit schedule property. After come to know about illegal occupation of defendants, plaintiff several times demanded defendants to handover occupied portion but defendants are postponing same on one pretext or other, plaintiff not in a position to resist highhandedness of defendants, plaintiff got advised defendants through elders but in vain, plaintiff have no other alternative except to move for redressal.

3.Basing on memo filed by Counsels for plaintiff, suit against defendant

No.1 was dismissed as not pressed on 10.04.2026. Defendants 2 and 3 having received summons, did not turn up, hence they were set ex-parte on 25.03.2026.

4.To prove case of plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1, got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. Ex.A.1 is certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Chinna Kasappa and Alla Bakash in favour of

O.S.22/2026 4 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram

Chakali Lakshmamma dated 20.03.1989 who is grandmother of plaintiff. Ex.A.2 is unregistered Will executed by Chakali

Lakshmamma in favour of plaintiff dated 21.03.2025. Ex.A.3 is encumbrance certificate issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh,

Registration and stamps department dated 18.02.2026 for item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties. Ex.A.4 is death certificate of

Chakali Lakshmamma died on 27.03.2025 issued by Government of

Andhra Pradesh through registrar (birth and death, grampanchayat,

Bhanukota Village) dated 30.01.2026. Ex.A.5 is valuation certificate issued by Sub-Registrar, C.K. Palli for item No.1 of plaint schedule property dated 18.02.2026. Ex.A.6 is valuation certificate issued by

Sub-Registrar, C.K. Palli for item No.2 of plaint schedule property

dated 18.02.2026. In support of his case, first attestor of Ex.A.2

Garladinne Shiva Prasad, is examined as PW.2.

5.Heard Counsel for plaintiff, perused entire material available on record.

6.Now points for consideration are :-

(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for ?

(ii) To what relief ?

7. Point No. i :

Whether plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for ?

O.S.22/2026 5 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram

8.Along with above suit plaintiff filed petitions 3 in number against respondents/defendants under order 39, rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., vide

I.A.79/2026 under prays to restrain respondents/defendants, their men, agents, representatives from alienating illegal occupied portion in S.No.477 that is petition schedule property by temporary injunction pending disposal of suit on merits, mentioned schedule property in petition is as Sl.No.1, Nature : G.D., S.No.477, extent Ac.12.90 cents, in which respondents/defendants illegally occupied land to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents on Northern side, its boundaries for total extent

Ac.12.90 cents that is East : Land of Vepakunta Polanna and

Narayana; South : Land of Vepakunta Poalnna and Narayana; West :

Land of Chinna Marappa, Narayana and Rajanna; North : Land of

Divadeenam. In said petition this court was ordered urgent notice to respondents/defendants on payment of process through court and RP after hearing Counsel for petitioner/plaintiff after perusing the records.

Same was posted to 11.03.2026. On 11.03.2026 respondents 2 and 3 are called absent, no representation on their behalf, hence they are set exparte as summons served to them. R.1 is called absent, await notice to him through court and RP, matter is posted to 25.03.2026.

On 25.03.2026 office note is as await notice to R.1, returned for want of correct address to R.1, at request of Smt. J.Sumalatha, Advocate representing for petitioner, matter is posted to 26.03.2026. On 26.03.2026 petitioner is called absent. R.1 is called absent. At request of Smt. Y.Sunitha, Advocate representing for petitioner, issued notice to R.1 on payment of process through court and RP on furnishing his correct address particulars, matter is posted to

O.S.22/2026 6 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram 10.04.2026 on her request. On 10.04.2026 office note is as notice to

R.1 through court and RP not yet returned, batta is also not paid to

R.1 as per order dated 26.03.2026. On that day that is on 10.04.2026

Sri D.Vijaya Raghavendra and Smt. J.Sumalatha, Advocates filed vakalat on behalf of petitioner/plaintiff to contest matter on his behalf along with previous counsels, counsels for petitioner/plaintiff has filed memo stating that petition/case against R.1/D.1 is not pressed in view of above petition against R.1 is dismissed as not pressed, heard

Counsel for petitioner/plaintiff in part, matter is posted to 13.04.2026 to hear Counsel for petitioner/plaintiff further. On 13.04.2026 this matter is posted to 15.04.2026 as call with main O.S. On 15.04.2026 also docket order is as heard Counsel for petitioner, call with main

O.S., posted matter to 22.04.2026. On 22.04.2026 matter is posted to 28.04.2026 that is today with call with main O.S.

9.In I.A.80/2026 the petitioner/plaintiff prayed to restrain respondents/defendants, their men, agents, representatives from changing physical features in illegally occupied portion in S.No.477 that is petition schedule properties by temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit on merits. In I.A.81/2026 petitioner/plaintiff prayed to restrain the respondents, their men, agents, representatives from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner over petition schedule properties by temporary injunction pending disposal of suit on merits. Along with above suit, also filed third party affidavits two in number namely C.Lakshmanna, S/o C.Papanna and C.Ravi

Kumar, S/o C.Lakshmanna, they were stated in their affidavits that

O.S.22/2026 7 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram they are deponents, third parties to above suit proceedings, they know suit litigations very well, defendants are in illegal possession of some portion of property, they are trying to alienate illegal occupied portion of suit schedule property to third parties, defendants have no right to do so. To prove version of said third parties, plaintiff did not examine them to support his case. Plaintiff was stated as a petitioner in I.A.s filed by him three in number that is I.A.79/2026 to I.A.81/2026, so also he stated in main suit schedule as well as in petition schedule, showing items 1 and 2 at first item described as Sl.No.1, nature :

G.D., S.No.477, extent Ac.12.90 cents, its boundaries are as East :

Land of Vepakunta Polanna and Narayana; South : Land of

Vepakunta Poalnna and Narayana; West : Land of Chinna Marappa,

Narayana and Rajanna; North : Land of Divadeenam. At item No.2 of schedule is Sl.No.2, nature : G.D., S.No.482, extent Ac.15.15 cents, out of it Ac.3.00 cents, bounded by East : Land of Pujari Narasimhulu,

South : Land of Pedda Kasappa, West : Land of Pedda Kasappa,

North : Land of Palla Muthyalakka. To prove case of plaintiff, he absolutely failed to examine land owners of boundaries of suit schedule properties also. So, except self serving statement/oral testimonies of PW.1, he did not examine material and crucial witnesses, who are present at the time of execution of Ex.A.2. Ex.A.2 on which plaintiff mainly depend upon also doubtful, suspicious in nature, same was not executed as per law, procedure laid down, as executent Chakali Lakshmamma was died immediately after 5 days after execution of Ex.A.2 on 27.03.2025. Exs.A.3 to A.6 are only encumbrance certificate, death certificate of Chakali Lakshmamma,

O.S.22/2026 8 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram valuation certificates, plaintiff failed to file revenue records such as 1-B adangal, pattadar passbooks, title deed, tax receipts, etc.,

10.Above suit was filed on behalf of plaintiff against defendants for declaration of title of plaintiff over suit schedule property, direct defendants to deliver property which they occupied some portion illegally in S.No.477 to plaintiff, if defendants failed to do so, same may be through court of law, award costs of suit, for which after receipt of summons by defendants 2 and 3, they are remained set exparte on 10.03.2026 as they were called absent, no representation on their behalf. Whereas, summons not served to 1st defendant, as he was called absent, for want of his correct address particulars, at request of Smt. J.Sumalatha, Advocate, representing for plaintiff, matter is posted to 26.03.2026. On 26.03.2026 plaintiff is called absent, D.1 is called absent, at request of Smt. Y.Sunitha, Advocate, representing for plaintiff, issued summons to D.1 on payment of process TC and RP, on furnishing his correct address particulars, posted the same to 10.04.2026. On 10.04.2026 office note is summons to D.1, through court not yet returned, process not paid to

D.1 from 26.03.2026, ordered at request of Smt. Y.Sunitha representing for plaintiff on 26.03.2026. Sri D.Vijaya Raghavendra and Smt. J.Sumalatha, Advocates filed vakalat on behalf of plaintiff to contest matter on his behalf along with previous counsels, Counsels for plaintiff is filed common memo stating that case against D.1 is not pressed, so, in view of above said memo filed by them, suit against

D.1 is dismissed as not pressed, posted matter for plaintiff evidence

O.S.22/2026 9 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram to 13.04.2026. On 13.04.2026 chief examination affidavit of plaintiff is filed as PW.1, he was further chief examined as PW.1, Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked, chief examination of G.Siva Prasad, who is first attestor for Ex.A.2 is filed as PW.2, he is further chief examined as PW.2,

Counsel for plaintiff is reported as no further evidence on behalf of plaintiff, hence further evidence of plaintiff is closed, matter is posted for arguments to 15.04.2026. On 15.04.2026 heard Counsel for plaintiff in part, matter is posted to 22.04.2026 to hear further by

Counsel for plaintiff. On 22.04.2026 matter is posted to this day that is on 28.04.2026 for further arguments by Counsel for the plaintiff, at request from 22.04.2026 that is this day matter is treated as heard further by Counsel for plaintiff, proceeded with. Plaintiff is contending that Chakali Lakshmamma is absolute owner of plaint schedule properties, during her lifetime she was executed an unregistered Will

dated 27.03.2025 bequeathing properties to the plaintiff marked as

Ex.A.2. Ex.A.1 is the registered sale deed document No.263/1989,

dated 20.03.1989 stands in the name of Chakali Lakshmamma,

marked as Ex.A.1. As seen from Ex.A.1 plaint schedule properties were purchased by Chakali Lakshmamma, W/o Pullanna from Chinna

Kasappa, Allabakash through a registered sale deed for an amount of

Rs.41,500/-. As per Ex.A.1 it makes clear that Lakshamma has got property, she is absolute owner of suit schedule properties.

11.In Ex.A.2 it was attested by two attestors and one scribe, but plaintiff examined first attestor as PW.2 to prove Will but he does not examine material and crucial witness that is scribe of Ex.A.2 to prove

O.S.22/2026 10 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram

Ex.A.2. Generally, party approaches court has to prove his own case but he did not depend upon weakness of opposite party that is defendants in this case but here defendants 2 and 3 were set exparte, suit against D.1 was dismissed as not pressed by Counsel for plaintiff, why plaintiff has not examined another attestor and scribe of Ex.A.2 as it was an unregistered Will reasons best known to him only. In general to prove execution of Will party has to examine attestor and scribe as same was true, valid and genuine but plaintiff has not examined material and crucial witnesses that is 2nd attestor and scribe of Ex.A.2. Ex.A.3 is encumbrance certificate shows that Late Chakali

Lakshmamma got property and Ex.A.4 is death certificate of Chakali

Lakshmamma Exs.A.5, A.6 are valuation certificates for plaint schedule properties. Ex.A.1 is sale deed under which property purchased by Chakali Lakshmamma. It was not mentioned in the

Ex.A.1 that how said Chakali Lakshmamma got money to purchase property in her name, moreover Ex.A.2 was executed on 21.03.2025 said Lakshmamma was died on 27.03.2025, after execution of Ex.A.2 that is 5 days after only she died, moreover in Ex.A.2 there are no ingredients about how she was got property.

12.As seen from material available on record it is found that defendants mutated their names in revenue records, but no proof was filed in this case, to prove the same, if it is true that defendants occupied some extent of property why plaintiff has not pressed his claim against D.1 as he himself filed not press memo that D.1 has occupied property of plaintiff. Main contention of the plaintiff is that he

O.S.22/2026 11 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram was stated in his plaint as well as in his chief examination affidavit as

PW.1 that during lifetime of C.Lakshmamma, out of love and affection towards her grandson that is plaintiff had with free will, volution, voluntarily executed a Will in his favour on 21.03.2025 bequeathing suit schedule property in his favour in sound state of mind, that Will came into force after her demise, subsequently she was dead on 27.03.2025, after her death he had taken possession without any hindrance, he became absolute owner of suit schedule property, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as per testament of testator. But, on perusal of said version/statement of plaintiff/PW.1 his entire case was depending upon said Will/Ex.A.2 said to be executed by said C.Lakshmamma who is grandmother of plaintiff in this connection he stated that during her lifetime out of love and affection towards him, had with free will, volution, voluntarily executed Will in his favour on 21.03.2025 bequeathing suit schedule property in his favour in sound state of mind, that Will came into force after her demise, subsequently she was died on 27.03.2025. It shows that immediately within short time/within span of 5 days of execution of Ex.A.2, said C.Lakshmamma was dead, no explanation/reasons stated by him at anywhere in his case/contention/material filed by him about she was dead immediately within span of/short time of 5 days from the date of Ex.A.2 dated 21.03.2025 upto her death 27.03.2025 for reasons best known to him only. So, emerging/born/birth/execution of Ex.A.2 Will/testament said to be executed by testator in favour of plaintiff with free will, volution, voluntarily is doubtful and suspicious, and death of said C.Lakshmamma was dead on 27.03.2025

O.S.22/2026 12 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram immediately within short time/span of 5 days after execution of Ex.A.2

dated 21.03.2025 is also doubtful and suspicious that is whether her

death is natural or suspicious is in question mark.

13.Plaintiff has stated in his plaint and in his chief examination affidavit as PW.1 he stated that after death of said C.Lakshmamma,

Will came into force, after that taken possession and approached revenue authorities for mutation of his name in concerned records with regard to suit schedule property, at that time plaintiff came to know about illegal revenue entries of defendants, plaintiff questioned revenue authorities about illegal entries regarding suit schedule property, revenue authorities did not respond properly, not delete illegal entries, finally revenue authorities suggested plaintiff to declare title of plaintiff through a competent civil court, after that only revenue authorities mutate name of plaintiff in revenue records, hence, plaintiff filed this suit for declaration of title. To prove said version/statement of plaintiff/PW.1 except his self serving/oral statement as stated above, he was absolutely failed to file any documentary evidence to support his case as claimed for. Plaintiff stated in his plaint as well as in his chief examination affidavit as PW.1 that while it was so, defendants taking advantage of illegal entries in their names in revenue records, they recently forcibly occupied some portion of land to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in S.No.477 out of Ac.12.90 cents on

Northern side of said S.No. in suit schedule property, plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of remaining extent in this survey number, Ac.7.90 also not in S.No.482 with an extent of Ac.15.51, out

O.S.22/2026 13 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram of it Ac.3.00 also defendants denying very title of plaintiff over suit schedule property, after came to know about illegal occupation of defendants, plaintiff several times demanded defendants to handover occupied portion, but defendants postponing same on one pretext or other, plaintiff is not in a position to resist highnadedness of defendants, he got adviced through elders but in vain. Plaintiff have no other alternative except to seeking this court for redressal. Here also, plaintiff/PW.1 stated only his oral/self serving statement, except that he did not file any documentary evidence to prove same to support same to his case, if same was really happened even otherwise to believe his version as stated above, he is having opportunity as per law that he had issued legal notice to defendants calling upon to handover illegal occupation of his land prior to filing of this suit, that is also failed to do so even, moreover, he was absolutely failed to lodge report before concerned police requesting to take appropriate criminal action against defendants that who are illegal occupied his some portion of land with their highhanded acts.

Moreover, when there is serious disputes between him and defendants there are ample opportunities to appoint Advocate

Commissioner to adjudicate the serious land disputes between them, that was also he was failed to do so. So, evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.6 are not believable, are not trustworthy, are not true, valid and genuine in the eye of law and procedure. So it makes clear that entire case of plaintiff is fabricated, created, concocted story, fraudulent means, misleading, misrepresenting the

O.S.22/2026 14 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram court with magic, illusion, except that nothing is prevailed in it, hence, this suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point is answered.

14. Point No. ii :

To what relief?

In view of the finding at point No.1 this suit is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, this suit is dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, both parties do bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Dharmavaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff:For defendants:

PW.1 : Chakali Raju - NIL -

PW.2 : Garladinne Shiva Prasad

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff: Ex.A.1:Certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Chinna Kasappa and Alla Bakash in favour of Chakali Lakshmamma dated 20.03.1989.

Ex.A.2 : Un-registered Will executed by Chakali Lakshmamma in favour of plaintiff dated 21.03.2025.

O.S.22/2026 15 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram

Ex.A.3 : Encumbrance Certificate issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh, Registration and Stamps Department dated 18.02.2026.

Ex.A.4 : Death certificate of Chakali Lakshmamma dated 27.03.2025, issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh through Registrar (birth and death, Grampanchayat, Bhanukota village) dated 30.01.2026.

Ex.A.5 : Valuation certificate issued by Sub-Registrar, C.K. Palli for item No.1 of plaint schedule property dated 18.02.2026.

Ex.A.6 : Valuation certificate issued by Sub-Registrar, C.K. Palli for item No.2 of plaint schedule property dated 18.02.2026.

For defendants: - NIL -

Id/- T.V.L. C.J(SD), Dharmavaram

H.M.O.P.116/20231Civil Judge’s Court

(Senior Division), Dharmavaram

CNR.No.APAN0D0001742023

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

DHARMAVARAM.

PRESENT:- T. Venkateswarlu,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharmavaram.

Friday, this the 24th day of April, 2026.

H.M.O.P. NO. 116/2023

Between Gunda Venugopal, S/o G.Nagadasu, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Private Employee, Residing at D.No.9-131, Varalakshmi Theatre Road, Dharmavaram, Sri Sathya Sai District …Petitioner

And

Seela Balachowdamma, W/o Gunda Venugopal, D/o Seela Nagaseshu, aged about 27 years, Hindu, Software Engineer, Residing at D.No.4-209, Shivanagar, Dharmavaram, Sri Sathya Sai District. …Respondent

This petition has come before me on 24.04.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri R.Veeranjaneyulu, Sri P.Prasad, Advocates for the Petitioner; and of Kum. V.G. Bala Sundari, Advocate for the respondent; upon hearing both sides; upon perusing the entire material available on record having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:-

O R D E R

1.This petition filed by petitioner against respondent under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to grant decree of divorce dissolving marriage between petitioner and respondent and for costs of this petition.

H.M.O.P.116/20232Civil Judge’s Court

(Senior Division), Dharmavaram

2.a) Case of petitioner is that respondent is legally wedded wife of petitioner whose marriage was taken place on 10.03.2019 at Sri Maruthi

Raghavendra Swamy Kalyana Mandapam, Dharmavaram as per Hindu rites, customs, at the time of marriage her parents given perks to him, his family bored all marriage expenses, out of their wedlock on 10.02.2020 they were blessed with a female child, now aged about 3 years. Respondent was not interested in marital tie with petitioner, she was forced by her parents to marry him, as she was in love with Muslim boy while she was studying at college, as she joined with petitioner at Ahmedabad at fag end of April, 2019. As elders decided to perform Seemantham function on 12.01.2020 she went to her parents house for delivery, delivered a female child on 10.02.2020, on 14.04.2020 her brother came to petitioner’s house, started galata using filthy language abusing mother of petitioner, all family members, broken TV, all household articles, as petitioner parents preferred complaint at Dharmavaram Police Station against acts of respondent’s brother Dharmavaram Police gave counselling, resolved issue, respondent did not join with petitioner after her delivery, he made oral requests to come, join with him but she refused to join with him, he visited her house to take her back to his house for that she refused saying that she is not interested in marriage with him, respondent expressed her disinterest to live together with him. In spite of efforts, mediation by him, she is not willing to come, join with him, in fact refused to join thereby willfully deserted him, since then she is living at her choice without limitations, under circumstances it will become impossible to him to live with mental torture, agony.

b)Community elders convened number of panchayats at respondent’s house went futile. At one instance in month of August, 2022 elders of both

H.M.O.P.116/20233Civil Judge’s Court

(Senior Division), Dharmavaram sides again convened panchayats in presence of elders she revealed that she is not interested to marry him, she is not willing to join with him. In month of September, 2022 she had given police complaint, police adviced to return her gold ornaments, in the presence of elders, their advice under mutual understanding she is agreed to take an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as deposit for child welfare, he returned all gold ornaments to her, agreed to take mutual divorce, both he, she executed an agreement on 17.09.2022 in the presence of elders. As per said agreement petitioner deposited

Rs.10,00,000/- on 07.10.2022 in HDFC Bank, Dharmavaram, as per agreement respondent, petitioner has to file divorce petition mutually for dissolution of their marriage. Respondent now showing her deaf ear, she and her parents now demanding him for closure of Fixed deposit amount/account, further demanding to give cash to her. Prior to marriage with him, she worked at HCL Company, Chennai, she is currently working as Software engineer at Bangalore.

3.Reconciliation failed between parties on 26.03.2024.

4.Counter filed on behalf of respondent denying allegations stated in petition, contended that allegations made in para 3 of petition that she is legally wedded wife of him, whose marriage was taken place on 10.03.2019 at Sri Maruthi Raghavendra Swamy Kalyana Mandapam, Dharmavaram as per Hindu rites, customs, out of their wedlock on 10.02.2020 they were blessed with a female child, now aged about 3 years are true and correct.

After marriage respondent joined matrimonial life with petitioner, from the date of marriage he harassed her both physically, mentally, his family members instructed him to kill her, performed another marriage, at this stage he beat her indiscriminately without any reason, suspected her character when she talked with any person, she number of times advised

H.M.O.P.116/20234Civil Judge’s Court

(Senior Division), Dharmavaram him smoothly to change his attitude but he did not change his attitude, gradually developed ill-feelings against her, he totally change his behaviour, subjecting to physical, mental cruelty which cannot be expressed in terms of words. About one year back petitioner, his parents unnecessarily quarreled with her, beat her with hands, legs, necked out from his house, he intentionally deserted her, she got utmost love, affection on him, she is always ready, willing to join him to lead happy matrimonial life. If petitioner deposited Rs.10,00,000/- in HDFC Bank, Dharmavaram in favour of respondent, her daughter, even not given any documentary proof to her, there are no bonafides in petition. Prayed to dismiss the petition with

Costs.

5.After filing counter on behalf of respondent, matter posted for enquiry, adjourned the matter from time to time as I.A.175/2024 is pending, on 13.3.2026 this matter, main case is referred to Mediation Center for amicable settlement at request of both sides. I.A.175/2024 under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed, the matter was posted from time to time for enquiry upto 13.03.2026. On 13.03.2026 at request of both counsels this matter is referred to mediation center, Dharmavaram for amicable settlement, both parties are directed to attend before mediation center,

Dharmavaram, posted the matter to 27.03.2026, matter was adjourned from time to time for filing mediation report by Smt. D.Bhargavi, Advocate. On 27.03.2026 being public holiday matter was posted to 01.04.2026. From 01.04.2026 to 17.04.2026 the matter was adjourned from time to time at request for filing mediation report by Smt. D.Bhargavi.

6.Terms of Mediation Agreement are read over to petitioner and respondent and they accepted, admitted to be true. Terms of Mediation

H.M.O.P.116/20235Civil Judge’s Court

(Senior Division), Dharmavaram

Agreement are not opposed to public policy nor forbidden by law.

Accordingly this court accepted Mediation Agreement entered between parties. As per mediation settlement agreement, disputes, differences had arisen between parties, petitioner has filed above said HMOP.116/2023 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharmavaram, matter was referred to mediation in Dis.No.164/2026/ADR/ATP, dated 24.03.2026 through

Co-Ordinator, ADR/Mediator Center, Anantapuramu, both parties agreed

Smt. D.Bhargavi, Advocate would act as meditator, mediation was initiated on 24.03.2026 and continued till 17.04.2026 whereas both parties are present along with their counsels, process of mediation conducted. Parties arrived at an amicable solution, resolving above mentioned dispute, differences, terms of settlement are arrived, voluntarily agreed at following terms of mediation settlement agreement :

7.Both parties are present. Parties with assistance of mediator and their counsels voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving above mentioned dispute, differences terms of settlement arrived voluntarily agreed at the following terms.

1.Petitioner and the respondent voluntarily with free consent agreed to dissolve their marital tie between them dated 10.03.2019 by way of divorce.

2.Petitioner and respondent will lead their own lives without interference of each other since there is irretrievable breakdown of their marriage.

3.Parties are agreed to withdraw allegations made against each other in any manner.

4.Petitioner already deposited an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in the name of their minor daughter by name Gunda Mokshitha as fixed deposit on 07.10.2022 in HDFC Bank, Dharmavaram same was now became Rs.11,74,142/- and the same is deposited in the name of minor daughter i.e. Gunda Mokshitha as a Fixed Deposit for her maintenance on 17.04.2026, petitioner had changed name of

H.M.O.P.116/20236Civil Judge’s Court

(Senior Division), Dharmavaram guardian from his name to name of respondent also agreed that respondent can withdraw the interest on Fixed Deposit monthly for maintenance (Education, Health, accommodation, etc.) of their minor child i.e. Gunda Mokshitha, also petitioner agreed that interest on Fixed Deposit will directly credited into account of respondent every month and she can withdraw same for maintenance of their daughter.

5.Respondent also agreed for above and she agreed that she will not withdraw Fixed Deposit amount till their minor child attains majority, if she withdraws before her daughter’s attaining majority, petitioner is having right to claim on the respondent, after attaining majority Gunda Mokshitha can withdraw Fixed Deposit if she desires.

6.Respondent agreed to take her minor child’s custody till child attains majority, agreed that she cannot file any case against petitioner for maintenance on behalf of her minor child till child attains majority.

7.Respondent and petitioner both agreed that they will not claim any right or rights of person and property against each other or against their family members.

8.Petitioner and respondent herein voluntarily, with free consent, agreed to relinquish their rights over self/joint acquired movable and immovable properties of petitioner and respondent and their parents.

9.Respondent voluntarily, with free consent agreed not to claim any maintenance for her from petitioner in future.

10. Both parties agreed that they shall not trouble each other in any manner whatsoever, including sending messages or comments in social media on their past life. Both parties shall not share pictures/photographs/clips of their past life or present or future in social media in any form.

11. Both parties agreed that they will not file any complaints before any police station, courts or authority against each other regarding their past life and incidents, since differences are amicably settled between them.

12. Since both parties arrived above terms, both the parties agreed to dissolve their marriage solemnized on 10.03.2019 in Dharmavaram, as marriage between parties is irretrievably broken down.

13. Contents of agreement are without any coercion or under undue influence.

H.M.O.P.116/20237Civil Judge’s Court

(Senior Division), Dharmavaram

8.Thus, in view of terms of compromise arrived voluntarily, hence, decree is passed to be in terms of compromise stated above between parties. After satisfying itself as to reasons stated by both parties for divorce in the petition and counter, this court is inclined to grant decree of divorce to petitioner and respondent.

9.In the result, this petition is allowed without Costs, granting decree of divorce in favour of petitioner, dissolving marriage between petitioner and respondent solemnized on 10.03.2019 at Sri Maruthi Raghavendra Swamy

Kalyana Mandapam, Dharmavaram, as per terms of settlement arrived

before Mediator, Mediation Center, Dharmavaram as per proceedings of

Co-Ordinator, ADR/Mediation Center, Anantapuramu in Dis.No.

164/2026/ADR/ATP, dated 24.03.2026.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Dharmavaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

--NIL--

Id/- T.V.L. C.J.(S.D.), Dharmavaram

HMOP.16/20261Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram

CNR.No.APAN0D0000352026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

DHARMAVARAM.

PRESENT:- T. Venkateswarlu,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharmavaram.

Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026.

H.M.O.P. NO.16/2026

Between Gorla Baby, D/o G.Venkata Lakshmamma, W/o M.Obireddy, aged about 45 years, D.No.1/184, Tummala Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, Andhra Pradesh State. …Petitioner

And

M.Obireddy, S/o M.Balanarayana, aged 50 years, Private Driver R/o D.No.2/29, Damanapalli Village, H/o Marthadu, Mudigubba Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, Andhra Pradesh State. …Respondent

This petition has come before me on 27.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Partha Sarathi, Advocate for the Petitioner; the respondent remained set exparte; upon perusing the entire material available on record; having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:-

O R D E R

1.This petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under

Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to grant decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and for costs of this petition.

2.Case of the petitioner is that petitioner is legally wedded wife of respondent, their marriage was solemnized on 21.03.2005 at Sri Shirdi

HMOP.16/20262Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram

Saibaba Temple, Sangameswaram as per Hindu rites, tributes before families of both side elders, immediately after marriage she stepped into matrimonial house, lived happily for 5 years happily, during wedlock they blessed with two daughters namely (1) Yamuna, aged about 21 years, (2)

Gnapika. After birth of two daughters he started harassing, torturing on her pretext that she did not give birth to male children and gave birth to two female children. Suddenly he has left work, addicted to bad habits like smoking, drinking, gambling, started harassing her, her daughters, he did not provide basic necessities like food, cloth, medicine to her, her daughters, but many times she tried to change him but in vain, in this connection she has no option except to join with her parents, after 5 years of marriage she has came out from matrimonial house, entered into her parental house along with her two daughters for their livelihood, many times she, her parents went to his house, told politely to give up bad habits, change his attitude, requested many times to come to Tummala, take her to his house lead happy life but he did not hear her good words, finally he came to her parents house, picked up altercation with her, beat her in ugly manner, since 20 years she is waiting with fond hope that he will change his attitude, good days will come to her door steps, finally she has came to conclusion that it is better to get divorce from him. Hence, the petition.

3.Respondent was remained set ex-parte on 16.04.2026.

4.On behalf of petitioner, petitioner herself examined as P.W1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. Ex.P.1 is the original wedding invitation card of the petitioner and the respondent dated 21.03.2005. Ex.P.2 is the marriage photos of petitioner and respondent two in number along with D.V.D.

Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal notice issued by petitioner through her

HMOP.16/20263Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram counsel to respondent calling upon to come, take petitioner along with their daughters, to start marital life happily.

5.Heard the Counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material available on record.

6.Now the points for consideration are:

i. Whether petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce as prayed for?

ii. To what relief?

7. POINT No.i :

Whether petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce as prayed for?

To establish case of the petitioner, petitioner herself examined as

P.W1 and reiterated the averments of her petition, got marked the Exs.P.1 to P.3 in support of her contention. As the respondent remained exparte, evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged, un discredited. In view of respondent remained exparte adverse inference can be drawn against him that he admitted entire claim of petitioner, nothing put forward as to contest same. Documentary evidence adduced by petitioner concern that is original wedding invitation card of petitioner and respondent dated 21,.03.20054, marriage photo of petitioner and respondent along with C.D., marked as Exs.P.1 and P.2 proved that marriage between them solemnized on 24.04.2024. Unchallenged testimony of petitioner proved that respondent treated petitioner with cruelty. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce. Accordingly, the point is answered.

8. POINT No.ii :

To what relief?

HMOP.16/20264Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division)

Dharmavaram

In view of finding at point No.i, this petition is liable to be allowed.

In the result, this petition is allowed without Costs, granting decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner, dissolving the marriage, between the petitioner and the respondent, solemnized on 21.03.2005 at Sri Shirdi

Saibaba Temple, Sangameswaram, from date of this order.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Dharmavaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For petitioner: For respondent:

P.W1: Gorla Baby - NIL -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For petitioner:

Ex.P.1 : Original wedding invitation card of petitioner and respondent

dated 21.03.2005.

Ex.P.2: Marriage photos of petitioner and respondent two in number along with D.V.D.

Ex.P.3 : Office copy of legal legal notice issued by petitioner through her counsel to respondent calling upon to come, take petitioner along with their daughters, to start marital life happily.

For respondent:

--NIL--

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Dharmavaram

H.M.O.P.1/20261Civil Judge’s Court,

(Senior Division), Dharmavaram

CNR.No.APAN0D0000072026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

DHARMAVARAM.

PRESENT:- T. Venkateswarlu,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharmavaram.

Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026.

H.M.O.P. NO. 1/2026

Between

1.P.Vasudeva, S/o Ramachandra, aged 34 years, Hindu, business, Residing at 7-612-5, Geetha Garden, Dharmavaram.

2.P.Manjula, W/o Vasudeva, D/o Prabhakara, aged 31 years, Hindu, Housewife, Residing at Geetha Nagar, Dharmavaram, now residing at Nyamaddala Village, Chennekothapalli Mandal. …Petitioners

And

Nil. …Respondent

This petition has come before me on 28.04.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri C.Krishnaiah, Sri M.P.Subba Rao, Sri D.Abdul Sab, Advocates for the Petitioners; Respondent column shown as Nil in the petition, upon hearing the Counsel for the Petitioners; upon perusing the entire material available on record having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:-

O R D E R

1.This petition filed by the petitioners under Section 13B of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 to grant decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the first petitioner and the second petitioner by mutual consent.

H.M.O.P.1/20262Civil Judge’s Court,

(Senior Division), Dharmavaram

2.Averments of petition in brief, are, as follows :

Petitioner No.1 is husband of petitioner No.2, their marriage was solemnized on 26.07.2020 at 2nd petitioner’s house at Nyamaddala village,

Chennekothapalli Mandal as per Hindu rites, customs, immediately after marriage 2nd petitioner joined with 1st petitioner, lived together as wife and husband about one year, out of their wedlock no children born. From beginning of marriage they could not live happily as several disputes, differences were arose between them, resulting not lead sexual happy marital life, both were tried to lead together as husband and wife at advice of village elders but said problems have been increasing day to day, due to which both parties family members have been suffering from mental agony, there is no chance to reunion between petitioners to lead marital life.

Petitioners together agreed to get decree of divorce by mutual consent to lead their rest of life peacefully.

3.Reconciliation was failed between parties on 28.04.2026.

4.During enquiry petitioners themselves examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. Ex.P.1 is the original wedding invitation card of 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner dated 26.07.2020. Ex.P.2 is the marriage photo of 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner.

5.Heard Counsel for petitioners and perused entire material available on record.

H.M.O.P.1/20263Civil Judge’s Court,

(Senior Division), Dharmavaram

6.Now points for consideration are:

1. Whether petitioners are entitled for decree of divorce by mutual consent as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

7. POINT No.1 :

Whether petitioners are entitled for decree of divorce by mutual consent as prayed for?

On perusal of evidence of the P.Ws 1 and 2 it is found that their marriage was solemnized on 26.07.2020 at 2nd petitioner’s house at

Nyamaddala village, Chennekothapalli Mandal as per Hindu rites, customs, immediately after marriage 2nd petitioner joined with 1st petitioner, lived together as wife and husband about one year, out of their wedlock no children born, from beginning of marriage they could not live happily as several disputes, differences were arose between them, resulting not lead sexual happy marital life, both were tried to lead together as husband and wife at advice of village elders, but said problems have been increasing day to day due to which both parties of family members have been suffering from mental agony, there is no chance to reunion between petitioners to lead marital life. Petitioners together agreed to get decree of divorce by mutual consent to lead their rest of life peacefully.

8.PW.1 and PW.2 further stated in their chief examination that in the above O.P. elders have interfered into compromise between them, at instance of elders they compromised under following terms: petitioner No.2 has no right to claim any future maintenance or properties or any monitory

H.M.O.P.1/20264Civil Judge’s Court,

(Senior Division), Dharmavaram benefits belongs to petitioner No.1 in future and advised that as they are living separately to take divorce. Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with

Exs.P.1 and P.2 proved case of petitioners as claimed by them in their petition, they are entitled for divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9. POINT No.2:-

To what relief?

In view of finding at point No.1, this petition is liable to be allowed.

In the result, this petition is allowed without Costs, granting decree of divorce in favour of the petitioners, dissolving the marriage between first petitioner and second petitioner, solemnized on 26.07.2020 at 2nd petitioner’s house at Nyamaddala village, Chennekothapalli Mandal, from the date of this order.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Dharmavaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For petitioners: For respondent:

P.W1 : P.Vasudeva Shown as nil in petition P.W2 : P.Manjula

H.M.O.P.1/20265Civil Judge’s Court,

(Senior Division), Dharmavaram

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For petitioners:

Ex.P.1 : Original wedding invitation card of 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner

dated 26.07.2020.

Ex.P.2 : Marriage photo of 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner.

For respondent:

Shown as nil in petition.

Id/- T.V.L. C.J.(SD), Dharmavaram

Case Historyhttp://172.17.43.2/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.ph..

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Senior Civil Judge

Case No. :H.M.O.P/0000083/2025 Mannela Kotappa Vs Mannela Pravalika

Date : 24-04-2026

Business: As per orders of the Honourable Principal District Judge, Ananthapuramu vide Tr.OP.No.42 of 2025 dated 16.04.2026 this case is transmitted to Senior

Judge (Senior Division) , Kadiri office is directed to submit entire case record

to Civil Judge (Senior Divsion), Kadiri, duly indexing. Therefore, both parties are hereby directed to attend before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri on 05.05.2026. Nature of Disposal: TRANSFERRED Disposal Date: 24-04-2026

Senior Civil Judge

1 of 111/05/26, 11:25