Currently Serving

Smt V.Veera Naga VenkataLakshmi

Senior Civil Judge

Senior Civil Judges Court Kaikaluru · Krishna · Andhra Pradesh

Smt V.Veera Naga VenkataLakshmi, Senior Civil Judge, is posted at Senior Civil Judges Court Kaikaluru, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh, India. 593 court orders on record since 2023. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles H, OS, EP cases.

593

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

AS/2/2024

Dasari Salmon Raju vs B. Venkata Siva Gopala Rao,

04 May 2026

AS No.02/2024

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION); KAIKALURU

Present: Smt. V.V.N.V. Lakshmi

Civil Judge(Senior Division)

Monday, this the 4th day of May, 2026

A. S. No.02 /2024

Between

Dasari Salmon Raju, S/o. Sundara Rao, Hindu, Properties, Aged 63 years, R/o. Kalidindi Village and Mandal, Krishna District.

....Appellant/plaintiff.

Vs.

B.Venkata Siva Gopala Rao, Manager, Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Vari Temple, Kalidindi Village and Mandal, Krishna District. ….Respondent/Defendant.

Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.79/2017 on

the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, dated 20.09.2023

Between

Dasari Salmon Raju. ….Plaintiff

Vs.

B.Venkata Siva Gopala Rao, Manager, Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Vari Temple, Kalidindi.

....Defendant.

This appeal is coming on 16.04.2026 before me, for final hearing, in the presence of Sri G.U.Sankar, Sri M.Pamulu and Sri P.Pavan Kanth, Advocates for the Appellant/plaintiff and of Sri V.S.R.Murthy, Advocate for respondent/defendant; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The present appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 1 2

AS No.02/2024

of C.P.C. praying this Hon’ble Court to set aside the decree and judgment in

OS.No.79/2017 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, dated 20.09.2023.

Appellant herein is the plaintiff in the main suit in OS No.79/2017. Original suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs.

Parties herein will be referred to be as they are arrayed in the main suit.

2. Brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

a).The plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of a small pan shop in Panchayat road margin in an extent of 20 yards in

R.S.No. 989 situated at Kalidindi Village and Mandal, which is suit schedule property. The plaintiff occupied the schedule property about 30 years back.

Since the date of occupation, the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property by running a small pan shop in the schedule property. The running of the pan shop is not objectionable to Gram Panchayat authorities.

b).The defendant is the Manager for Sri Venu Gopala Swamy temple, Kalidindi having no right over the schedule property. Highhandedly demanding the plaintiff to vacate the schedule property by using force due to the village politics. To seek his vengeance, the defendant is trying to evict the plaintiff from the schedule property. As a part of unlawful efforts, the defendant issued a notice dated 22.05.2017 demanding the plaintiff to evict the schedule property without disclosing facts. Except the Gram Panchayat, Kalidindi, no others have authority over the schedule property.

c).On 31.05.2017 at about 4.00 p.m., while plaintiff was at the schedule property, the defendant came there along with his men and followers 3

AS No.02/2024

and tried to evict the plaintiff from the schedule property by using force. The plaintiff resisted them with the help of neighbours, reprimanded them and sent away. The defendant has no right over the schedule property. Defendant went away threatening that he would evict the plaintiff from schedule property at any cost. Hence, the suit.

3. Respondent/defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and further submitted that the plaintiff is in unauthorized possession of temple site and placed a baddi causing objection for temple activities. The defendant demanded orally on several occasions to vacate the encroachment. Plaintiff used to say that he will vacate within no time.

Thereafter, the defendant issued notice on 22.05.2017 to the plaintiff. Plaintiff received the notice and kept quiet. Plaintiff did not choose add Panchayat as party to the suit. This suit is filed for non joinder of necessary parties. Plaintiff did not obtain any possession certificate from panchayat in order to establish rightful possession. Plaint schedule property is in R.S.No.978/6A situated at

Kalidindi Village belongs to defendant temple and the temple records shows the title of the temple. The plaintiff interpreted the plaint schedule property by noting R.S.No.989 striking out R.S.No.978/B in order to obtain injunction orders and to play fraud on the court. The plaint schedule is not correct. The boundaries noted as if it is surrounded by panchayat on all sides. The suit is not maintainable. No civil court shall take cognizance of any suit under section 84(2) and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any proceedings taken or about to be taken by the Deputy Commissioner under section 83 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments

Act, 1987. Hence, defendant prays the court to dismiss the suit.

AS No.02/2024

4. The following issues were settled before the trial court.

(i).Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for?

(ii). To What relief ?

5.During the course of trial, plaintiff examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked

Ex.A1. On the other side, defendant was examined as D.W.1 and got marked

Ex.B.1.

6.On hearing both sides and on appreciation of evidence, trial court dismissed the suit against the plaintiff on 20.09.2023. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in OS No.79/2017 of Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Kaikaluru, appellant/plaintiff preferred appeal before the Civil Judge(Senior

Division), Kaikaluru in As No.02/2024.

7. The grounds of appeal urged by the Appellants reads as follows:

1). The Lower Court ought not to have dismissed the suit though admittedly the plaintiff was in possession of the schedule property as on the date of the suit.

2). The lower court erred in holding that the plaintiff has to establish his possession over the schedule property by producing relevant documents, though respondent admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

3). The lower court failed to take into consideration of Ex. A1 which was issued by the respondent prior to filing of the suit which clearly shows that the appellant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property.

4). The lower court erred in not considering the settled principle that a trespasser can maintain a suit for injunction even against the true owner not to evict him unless following due process of Law.

AS No.02/2024

5). The lower court erred in holding that the survey numbers mentioned differently by the appellant in pleadings and chief examination affidavit without considering the settled principle of boundaries will prevail over survey numbers and further erred in not observing that the survey numbers mentioned by the appellant are different from the survey numbers in which the respondent claiming rights as per their own document i.e. Ex.B1.

6). The lower court erred in observing that Ex. B1 is not related to the schedule property.

7). The lower court erred in holding that the appellant failed to prove that the schedule property belongs to Panchayat by not considering admittedly it is a road margin.

8). The lower court erred in holding that the appellant failed to show the panchayat authorities were not shown as parties to the present suit by not observing that the panchayat authorities has no objection for the possession of the appellant over the schedule property.

9). The lower court erred in considering the admissions made by the defendant in his evidence that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the schedule property for many years as per Ex.A1.

10). The lower court erred in not considering the Ex.A1 notice issued by the respondent and erroneously observed that P.W1 to P.W3 failed to prove the cause of action i.e. interference of respondent with the possession of the appellant before filing the suit. The intention of the respondent can be clearly seen by issuing Ex.A1 to the appellant unnecessarily.

11). The lower court erred in holding that the present suit is not maintainable against the respondent who belongs to Endowment Department by not observing the suit is filed against an individual.

12). The lower court erred in not taken into consideration that the suit is filed by the appellant against an individual and not against the endowment 6

AS No.02/2024

department. So the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit as well as the appeal.

Hence, appellant prayed the Hon’ble Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment in OS No.79/2017, dated 20.09.2023.

8.Learned Counsel for appellant argued that plaintiff has been in continues possession and enjoyment of small pan shop in panchayat road margin in an extent of 20 yards in RS.N.989 situated at Kalidindi village i.e, plaint schedule property. Defendant have no manner of right over the plaint schedule property. Plaint schedule property is in existence in panchayat road and panchayat authorities have got authority over the same. Pachayath authorities never objected the possession of plaintiff over plaint schedule property. Defendant who has no right and title over plaint schedule property issued Ex.A.1 to the plaintiff demanding to vacate the plaint schedule property as it is a temple land. Plaint schedule property is not a temple land. Defendant has no right to evict the plaint schedule property. Defendant failed to establish that plaint schedule property is a temple land. Plaint schedule land does not come under endowment department and therefore, it does come under A.P.

Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987. Plaintiff by examined PWs.1 to 3 and by exhibiting Ex.A.1, established that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property since many years without any interruption and cause of action. Hence, plaintiff prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment in OS.No.79/2017, dated 20.09.2023 and to decree the suit.

Appellant relied upon the case laws in --

Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs &

another dt.15.12.2003 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India -- 7

AS No.02/2024

“ It is the settled possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. The concept of settled possession and the right of the possessor to protect his possession against the owner has come to be settled by a catena of decisions.”

In A. Subramanian vs R. Pannerselvam dt. 08.02.2021 of

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that --

“ The High Court was also right in its view that it is a common principle of law that even trespasser, who is in established possession on the property could obtain injunction.”

9.Learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants submitted that plaint schedule property is covered under RS.No.978/6A, but not in RS.No.989.

Plaintiff did not exhibit any document to show that either the plaint schedule property is situated in survey No.989 or that plaint schedule land is under the authority of panchayat. Defendant temple is absolute owner of plaint schedule property in RS.No.978/6A. Injunction cannot be granted against true owner.

Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 shows that plaint schedule boundaries are incorrect. Plaintiff failed to establish the existence of plaint schedule property. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is not in consonance and inconsistent with each other. P.Ws.2 and 3 did not support the cause of action. The evidence of P.W.1 is not trustworthy and he is an interested witness. Plaintiff utterly failed to establish his case and cause of action by preponderance of probabilities. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

AS No.02/2024

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

1) Whether there are any reasons to interfere with findings made by the learned trial Judge?

2) Whether the appellant is entitled to the relief of setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.79/2017, dated 20.09.2023 on the file of

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kaikaluru?

3). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

Point Nos.1 to 3

11.It is the case of plaintiff that plaintiff has been continues possession and enjoyment of small pan shop in pachayat road margin in an extent of 20 yards in RS.No.989 i.e, plaint schedule property. The boundaries is shown in plaint schedule as of plaint schedule property are:-

East :Panachayat road.

South : Panchayat road margin.

West : Panchayat road margin.

North : Panchayat road margin.

Defendant contended that plaint schedule is not correct. In this regard,

PW.1 deposed that the western boundary is temple land and other 3 sides belongs to panchayat road margin. P.W.2 deposed that on the western side, 9

AS No.02/2024

the defendant temple land, on north continues road margin and on south, the main road and on the east of schedule property, panchayat road is situated.

P.W.3 deposed that on east and north - Panchayat road is situated, south -

High way road is situated and on west - Land of defendant temple is situated.

P.Ws.1 to 3 categorically deposed that to the west of plaint schedule property, land of defendant temple is situated, but in plaint schedule, western boundary is noted as panchayat road margin. Further, according to P.W.2, on south, main road is situated and according to P.W.3, high way road is situated. But, in plaint schedule, southern boundary is also noted as panchayat road margin.

Further southern boundary is not noted in plaint schedule, in order to give clarity regarding the plaint schedule. In view of above evidence of PW’s 1 to 3 and above discussion, this court holds that as contended by the defendant, the boundaries shown in plaint schedule are incorrect.

12.It is the case of defendant that plaint schedule land is in survey

No.978/6A. Plaintiff filed the suit stating that defendant issued Ex.A.1 notice to vacate the schedule property. On perusal of said notice, defendant mentioned that the land in survey No.978/6A to be evicted by plaintiff. Plaintiff filed this suit stating that plaint schedule land is situated in survey No.989. Plaintiff in his plaint did not deny the survey number 978/6A noted in Ex.A.1 notice.

Further, plaintiff did not file any document to prove that plaint schedule land is in survey No.989. Plaintiff did not choose to examine any panchayat authorities to prove that plaint schedule land is in survey No.989 and it is under panchayat. P.W.1 clearly deposed that he did not file any document to show that he had occupied the property in survey No. 989. He also did not issue reply notice for Ex.A.1. Ex.B.1 shows that land in an extent of Ac.2.78 cents in survey No. 978/6A is the land of endowment department, according to the register exhibited as Ex.B.1. Thus, the plaintiff utterly failed to prove that 10

AS No.02/2024

plaint schedule is situated in survey No.989 and it is not covered under Ex.B1.

Thus, plaintiff failed to establish the plaint schedule and existence of plaint schedule land in survey No.989.

13.It is the case of plaintiff that plaintiff has been continues possession and enjoyment of small pan shop in pachayath road margin in an extent of 20 yards in RS.No.989 i.e, plaint schedule property. It is case of defendant that plaintiff is in unauthorized possession of temple site and placed a baddi causing objection for temple activities. As discussed supra, plaintiff failed to establish that plaint schedule land is situated within the boundaries mentioned in plaint schedule and Survey number mentioned in the plaint schedule.

Defendant admitted the unauthorized possession of temple site by plaintiff but not possession of plaint schedule land. No document was exhibited before this court by plaintiff to prove his possession over plaint schedule land. PW’s 1 to 3 deposed that plaintiff is in possession of plaint schedule land and deposed the boundaries of land in which plaintiff is in possession differently from that of plaint schedule boundaries. Thus, PW’s 1 to 3 failed to support possession of plaintiff over plaint schedule land in clear terms. In view of above discussion, this court holds that plaintiff failed to establish his possession over plaint schedule land. Hence, the caselaws filed by plaintiff are not applicable to the present facts on hand.

14.It is the case of plaintiff that defendant without any manner of right, issued notice dated 22.05.2017/Ex.A1 demanding the plaintiff to evict the property in RS.No.978/6A. It is case of defendant that plaintiff is in unauthorized possession of temple site and placed a baddi causing objection for temple activities. On perusal of Ex.B1, land in an extent of Ac.2.78 cents in

RS.No.978/6A is mentioned Sec.43 register of Endowments department, 11

AS No.02/2024

which reflects that the temple got the said land. Plaintiff failed to establish that the plaint schedule land is in Survey No.989. Therefore, plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant issued eviction notice without any manner of right in respect of land in RS.No.978/6A.

15.Further, plaintiff contended that on 31.05.2017, at about 4.00 pm, while the plaintiff is at schedule property, defendant came there along with his men and followers and tried to evict the plaintiff from schedule property by using force. In this regard, P.W.2 in chief examination supported the cause of action but during cross examination, he deposed that he was not present on 31.05.2017 at 4.00 pm,. near alleged shop. He came to know the same through plaintiff. Thus, P.W.2 is an hearsay evidence. P.W.3 in chief examination supported the cause of action whereas, during cross examination, he deposed that either officials of temple or execution officer never forcibly came to plaintiff to remove the shop. Thus, the evidence of

P.W.3 supports the contest of defendant that he never tried to evict plaintiff from plaint schedule property forcibly. Hence, this court holds that plaintiff failed to establish cause of action.

16.As discussed supra, plaintiff failed to establish existence of plaint schedule property within the given plaint schedule survey number and boundaries, plaintiff’s possession in plaint schedule land and cause of action.

Hence, this court certainly holds plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. The trial court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record as per the settled legal principles. There are no reasons to interfere with the findings and conclusions given by the trial court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, points No.1 to 3 are answered against the Appellant.

AS No.02/2024

Point No.4

17.In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs and the judgment and decree in OS No.79/2017, dated 20.09.2023 on the file of Junior Civil

Judge, Kaikaluru is hereby confirmed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 4 th day of May, 2026.

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

KAIKALURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

…. Nil ...

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

KAIKALURU.

H.M.O.P/10/2024

Parasa Anjaneyulu vs Parasa Sravani

04 May 2026

H.M.O.P.No.10/2024

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

Present: Smt V.V.N.V Lakshmi ,

Civil Judge(Senior Division), Kaikaluru

Monday, this the 4th day of May, 2026

H.M.O.P.No.10/2024

Between:

Parasa Anjaneyulu, S/o. Nakshtraiah, Hindu, Aged 35 years, Coolie, R/o. Parasavanipallem Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Eluru District.

…..Petitioner

AND

Parasa Sravani, W/o. Anjaneyulu, D/o. Tumma Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, Housewife, R/o. Yelamakuduru Village, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District.

…..Respondent.

This petition is coming on 24.04.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri A.Rambabu and Sri A.S.Swaroop, Advocates for respondent; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court made the following:

O R D E R

The present petition was filed by petitioner under Sec.9 of Hindu Marriage

Act praying this Hon’ble Court to grant decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of petitioner by directing the respondent to join the petitioner to lead marital life.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

a).The respondent is wife of petitioner and their marriage was performed on 29.05.2015 as per Hindu rites in the presence of elders at Lord Sri

Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Kaikaluru. Immediately, after their marriage, the 2

H.M.O.P.No.10/2024

respondent joined the petitioner at the house of petitioner. They lead their marital life happily for 5 years and during their wedlock, they blessed with two children.

After the birth of 2nd child, the respondent lead marital life with petitioner for few days only. She used to go to her parent’s house and used to stay there without informing the petitioner. Finally, the petitioner put up separate family in the village of respondent. There also, the respondent used to visit her parent’s house frequently and stayed there. The petitioner requested the respondent to stay with him, but the respondent did not hear the words of petitioner. After some time, the petitioner got mediation with village elders. But, the respondent refused for cohabitation with the petitioner. Lastly, in the month of January, 2023, the respondent used to pick up quarrels with petitioner even for trivial matters. She always used to insult the petitioner. After that, the respondent deserted the petitioner from January, 2023.

Hence, this petition.

3.Respondent filed counter denying the petition averments and further submitted that at the time of their marriage, as per the demand of petitioner and his family members, father of petitioner presented the respondent an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- towards dowry and Rs.1,00,000/- towards sare samaan and 2 sovereigns of gold ornaments. They were blessed with two children and their 1st son Kumara Swamy is suffering with polio and he cannot walk. Petitioner never cared about his children and never provided financial care for the children. He is addicted to drinking and gambling. The petitioner used to harassed the respondent to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and he used to threaten the respondent for that purpose. He used to harass the respondent both physically and mentally for additional dowry. At the demand of the petitioner, the parents of respondent gave additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- to petitioner. After few days, the petitioner started ill-treating the respondent for remaining amount. During April, 2021, the petitioner and his family members necked out the respondent out of house for

additional dowry. The respondent is having life threat in the hands of petitioner and

H.M.O.P.No.10/2024

his family members. It is not safe for respondent to live with petitioner. Petitioner is always been a dutiful wife and she took utmost care of the petitioner and his family members. As the petitioner willfully necked out the respondent from their house, the petitioner cannot filed this petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to decree of Restitution of conjugal rights as prayed for?

5.Petitioner was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. On the other hand, respondent was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked on her behalf.

6.Heard arguments on both sides.

7.Counsel for petitioner argued that the marriage of petitioner and respondent was performed on 29.05.2015 and they lived happily for five years and they were blessed with two children. Petitioner did not take any dowry or gold as alleged by the respondent. Petitioner never harassed the respondent. Respondent herself deserted the petitioner and reached her parent’s house. Respondent did not register any case before police against the petitioner, which suggest that petitioner never harassed the respondent. Petitioner by examining himself as P.W.1 and by exhibiting P.1 to P.3 established his case of preponderance of probabilities. Hence, prayed to decree the petition.

8.Counsel for respondent argued that petitioner and respondent lived happily for some time and they were blessed with two children. It is the petitioner who harassed the respondent for additional dowry. Petitioner harassed the respondent both physically and mentally. He is addicted to bad vices. He subjected the respondent to cruelty. Respondent has got life threat and therefore, she cannot join 4

H.M.O.P.No.10/2024

the conjugal life with petitioner. Respondent by examining herself as R.W.1 established her contest. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

9.P.W.1 in chief examination deposed same as on the lines of petition averments. During cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that there are no disputes between him and respondent. His son is aged about 6 years. Respondent herself went to her parent’s house at about 5 years ago without any disputes and did not return till today. His son is physically handicapped. Mother of respondent is his sister. They are residing separately since 6 years.

R.W.1 in chief examination deposed same on the lines of counter averments.

During cross examination of R.W.1, she deposed that her husband is her near relative. They lived happily for five years. Her son is handicapped and he is getting pension and she is taking the same. She is doing job in Fancy Shop at Bhimavaram and her husband is residing in single and no cases were registered before police by her against her husband alleging harassment. She admitted that petitioner requested her by himself and through elders to rejoin him. Since the petitioner harassed her, she is refusing to join the petitioner. She will not give divorce to her husband. However her husband is ready to join with her, he has to come to her parent house as illatom son-in-law. She does not belief over petitioner that he will take care of her and her children. She will not join the petitioner at his house. She is not ready to join petitioner even at the rented house.

Point :

Section – 9 of Hindu Marriage Act reads as hereunder. --

Restitution of conjugal right.—When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. Explanation.—Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.

H.M.O.P.No.10/2024

10.It is the case of respondent that petitioner and respondent lived happily for some period and blessed with two children. Thereafter, petitioner addicted to drinking and gambling and harassed the respondent physically and mentally for

additional dowry. During April 2021, the petitioner along with his family members

necked out the respondent from his house to bring additional dowry.

R.W.1 deposed that she did not file any case before police station against her husband alleging harassment. Except oral evidence of R.W.1, there is no other evidence on record to support the case of respondent that petitioner harassed the respondent. Respondent alleged that the petitioner necked out the respondent from his house. But, during cross examination of R.W.1, she deposed that petitioner requested her by himself and through elders to rejoin him which suggest that petitioner is always willing to cohabit and live conjugal life with petitioner. R.W.1 during cross examination deposed that since the petitioner harassed her she is refusing to join with petitioner. R.W.1 during cross examination deposed that she will not join petitioner at his house or at a rented house. If petitioner comes to her as illatom son-in-law, she is ready to join with him. Thus, this evidence of R.W.1 suggest that R.W.1 is ready to join the petitioner and the main objection of respondent is the place of cohabitation. The evidence of R.W.1 that petitioner has to join her at her parent’s house seems illogical and conditional. This, evidence of

R.W.1 supports the case of petitioner that respondent willfully residing separately from petitioner without any reason. In view of above discussion, this court holds that respondent failed to establish that petitioner addicted to drinking and gambling and harassed the respondent physically and mentally for additional dowry. During

April 2021, the petitioner along with his family members necked out the respondent from his house to bring additional dowry.

11.Inspite of cross examination of P.W.1 by respondent, nothing was elicited in favour of respondent. The evidence of P.W.1 remained un-rebutted and supported the case of petitioner in all respects. Thus, the petitioner by examining himself as 6

H.M.O.P.No.10/2024

P.W.1 and cross examining R.W.1 established that it is the respondent who reached her parent’s house by deserting the petitioner without any cause.

Respondent being wife is under marital obligation to lead conjugal life with petitioner. There is no legal ground why the application should not be granted.

Hence, this court is inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, point is answered.

12.In the result, petition is allowed without costs, directing the respondent to join with the petitioner to lead marital life within three (03) months from the date of this Order, failing which, the petitioner is at liberty to proceed under due course of law.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this 4 th day of May, 2026.

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

KAIKALURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

P.W.1: Parasa Anjaneyulu. RW.1: Parasa Sravani.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner

Ex.P1 : Original photo between the petitioner and respondent.

Ex.P2: Attested Aadhar card of petitioner.

Ex.P3: Original marriage card of petitioner and respondent.

For Respondent : NIL

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

KAIKALURU.

H.M.O.P/13/2026

Pasupuleti Vinay vs NIl

08 May 2026

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

Present: Smt. V.V.N.V. LAKSHMI,

Civil Judge(Senior Division)

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026

H.M.O.P.No.13/2026

Between:

1.Pasupuleti Vinay, S/o. Srinivasu, Hindu, Aged 29 years, Cultivation, R/o. Bhimavaram Town and Mandal, West Godavari District.

2.Pasupuleti Navya Jyothi @ Appanna Navya, W/o. Pasupuleti Vinay, D/o. Appanna Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, Aged 26 years, Housewife, R/o.Korukollu Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Eluru District.

…....Petitioners.

AND

None

…..Respondent.

This petition is coming on 07.05.2026 day before me for appearance of parties, in the presence of Sri P.Pavankanth, Sri Ch.Sankara Sastry and Smt.Md.Razimunni, Advocates for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court made the following:

O R D E R

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed this petition U/s. 13 (B) of Hindu

Marriage Act (herein after referred as H.M Act for brevity) for dissolution of their marriage, dated 24.08.2024 by granting decree of divorce on the ground of ‘mutual consent’.

02. The brief facts of the said petition are as follows :

a).The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd petitioner. The marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 took place on 24.08.2024 at Town Hall, Near

Lanchila Revu, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, as per Hindu customs and rites in the presence of relatives, friends and elders and after marriage, the 2nd petitioner joined the 1st petitioner at his house at Bhimavaram Town and

Mandal to lead happy marital life and they lived happily some period i.e.,two months only. Their marriage was also consummated. They have no issues.

Later the 1st petitioner came to Korukollu Village of Kalidindi Mandal for wage work. Since then both petitioners have been residing in Korukollu Village.

Thereafter, some differences arose between them in the month of December, 2024 and since then, both the petitioners have been living separately.

Meanwhile both side, elders held some mediation for reunion of both the petitioners, but the petitioners did not agree to live together and they decided to live separately. The petitioners have been living separately for a period of more than one year and have not been able to live together during the period and there is no possibility of any reconciliation or reunion between them.

Therefore, the attempt of the elders of both sides proved futile and as there is no chance for reunion among the petitioners, the elders advised them to obtain decree of divorce from the competent court and that both the petitioners agreed to file the present petition for dissolving of their marriage on the ground of mutual consent. Hence, this petition.

03.IA No.181/2026 is allowed on 07.05.2026 and 6 months period required

U/s 13B(2) of H.M.Act is waived.

04.Petitioners examined as PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 t o P4 were marked no behalf of petitioners.

05. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners.

06. Now the points for consideration is

i). Whether the petitioners are entitled for divorce under mutual

consent by dissolution for marriage, dt.24.08.2024

U/Sec.13(B) of H.M.Act as prayed for?

ii). To what relief?

07.PWs. 1 and 2 in their chief-examination deposed that their marriage was performed on 24.08.2024 at Town Hall, Near Lanchila Revu,

Bhimavaram, West Godavari District as per Hindu customs and rites. In proof of their marriage, Petitioners filed Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Ex.P1 is the

Wedding card of the petitioners, dated 24.08.2024. Ex.P2 is the marriage photo of petitioners. PW.1 and PW.2 deposed that they lived happily for a period of 2 months only. They further deposed that thereafter disputes arose between them and and they are living separately, deserting and neglecting each other. All the efforts made by elders and well-wishers to unite them proved futile. PW.1 and PW.2 further testified that both the parties are living separately. PW.1 and PW.2 deposed that they decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. Evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 clearly supported the case of petitioners. Under the circumstances stated by the Petitioners/PW.1 and PW.2 they were residing separately for considerable period and considering the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, this court is of opinion that there is no chance of reunion between both the petitioners and thereby this court holds that Petitioners are entitled for divorce by mutual consent. Point

No.1 is answered in favour of the Petitioners.

08.Point No.2:- In the result, this petition is allowed bygranting decree of divorce under mutual consent U/s.13 (B) of H.M Act by dissolving the marriage of the Petitioners dated 24.08.2024. In the circumstances no costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8 th day of May, 2026.

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

KAIKALURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Petitioners :

PW1: Pasupuleti Vinay.

PW2: Pasupuleti Navya Jyothi @ Appanna Navya.

For Respondent: … None ...

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners

Ex.P1 : Marriage Wedding card of the petitioners, dated 24.08.2024.

Ex.P2: Marriage photo of petitioners.

Ex.P3: Verified Aadhar card of petitioner No.1

Ex.P4: Verified Aadhar card of petitioner No.2

For Respondent: … Nil ...

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

KAIKALURU.

H.M.O.P/30/2026

Nimmala Hema Chandra Subrahmanyam vs Nil

08 May 2026

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

Present: Smt. V.V.N.V. LAKSHMI,

Civil Judge(Senior Division)

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026

H.M.O.P.No.30/2026

Between:

1.Nimmala Hema Chandra Subrahmanyam, S/o. Late Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged 25 years, Cultivation, R/o. D.No.8-72/2, Dwaraka Nagar, Phase-2, Boduppal, Hyderabad, K.V.Rangareddy District, Telangana State.

2.Nimmala Hamsini Devi @ Kesireddy Hamsini Devi, W/o. Nimmala Hema Chandra Subrahmanyam, D/o. Kesireddy Yesunadam, Hindu, Aged 23 years, Housewife, R/o. Chavalipadu Village of Mandavalli Mandal, Eluru District.

…....Petitioners.

AND

None

…..Respondent.

This petition is coming on 07.05.2026 day before me for appearance of parties, in the presence of Sri G.U.Sankar, Sri P.Pavankanth, Sri Ch.Sankara Sastry and Smt.M.Satya Surya Prabhavathi, Advocates for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court made the following:

O R D E R

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed this petition U/s. 13 (B) of Hindu

Marriage Act (herein after referred as H.M Act for brevity) for dissolution of their marriage, dated 11.03.2023 by granting decree of divorce on the ground of ‘mutual consent’.

02. The brief facts of the said petition are as follows :

a).The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd petitioner. The marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 took place on 11.03.2023 at the 2nd petitioner house i.e., at Chavalipadu village of Mandavalli Mandal, Eluru District as per

Hindu customs and rites in the presence of relatives, friends and elders and after marriage, the 2nd petitioner joined the 1st petitioner at his house at

Boduppal, Hyderabad, to lead marital life and they lived happily for some period i.e., six months only. During their wedlock they blessed with one female child by name Rushika Satya Sai aged about 2 years. Thereafter, some differences arose between both the petitioners in the month of November, 2023 and since then both the petitioners have been living separately.

Meanwhile both side elders held mediation for their reunion. But they did not agree to live together and decided to live separately. The petitioners have been living separately for a period of more than two years and there is no possibility of any reconciliation or reunion between them. Therefore, the attempt of the elders of both sides proved futile and as there was no chance for reunion among the petitioners, the elders advised both the petitioners to obtain decree of divorce from the competent court and that both the petitioners agreed to file the present petition for dissolving of their marriage on mutual consent. Hence, this petition.

03.IA No.183/2026 is allowed on 07.05.2026 and 6 months period required

U/s 13B(2) of H.M.Act is waived.

04.Petitioners examined as PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 t o P4 were marked no behalf of petitioners.

05. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners.

06. Now the points for consideration is

i). Whether the petitioners are entitled for divorce under mutual

consent by dissolution for marriage, dt.11.03.2023

U/Sec.13(B) of H.M.Act as prayed for?

ii). To what relief?

07.PWs. 1 and 2 in their chief-examination deposed that their marriage was performed on 11.03.2023 at 2nd petitioner’s house i.e., Chavalipadu village of Mandavalli Mandal as per Hindu customs and rites. In proof of their marriage, Petitioners filed Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Ex.P1 is the Wedding card of the petitioners, dated 11.03.2023. Ex.P2 is the marriage photo of petitioners. PW.1 and PW.2 deposed that they lived happily for a period of six months only. They further deposed that thereafter disputes arose between them and in the month of November, 2023 they are living separately, deserting and neglecting each other. All the efforts made by elders and well-wishers to unite them proved futile. PW.1 and PW.2 further testified that both the parties are living separately. PW.1 and PW.2 deposed that they decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. Evidence of

P.Ws 1 and 2 clearly supported the case of petitioners. Under the circumstances stated by the Petitioners/PW.1 and PW.2 they were residing separately for considerable period and considering the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, this court is of opinion that there is no chance of reunion between both the petitioners and thereby this court holds that Petitioners are entitled for divorce by mutual consent. Point No.1 is answered in favour of the

Petitioners.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8 th day of May, 2026.

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

KAIKALURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Petitioners :

PW1: Nimmala Hema Chandra Subrahmanyam.

PW2: Nimmala Hamsini Devi @ Kesireddy Hamsini Devi.

For Respondent: … None ...

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners

Ex.P1 : Wedding card of the petitioners, dated 11.03.2023.

Ex.P2: Marriage photo of petitioners.

Ex.P3: Verified Aadhar card of petitioner No.1

Ex.P4: Verified Aadhar card of petitioner No.2

For Respondent: … Nil …

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

KAIKALURU.

H.M.O.P/3/2026

Bodavula sivannarayana vs Nil

08 May 2026

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

Present: Smt. V.V.N.V. LAKSHMI,

Civil Judge(Senior Division)

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026

H.M.O.P.No.03/2026

Between:

1.Bodavula Sivannarayana, S/o. Siva Sankara Rao @ Siva Sankaram, Hindu, Aged 29 years, Cultivation, R/o. Vinjaram Village of Kaikaluru Mandal, Eluru District.

2.Bodavula Kavya Sri @ Cheboina Kavya Sri, W/o. Bodavula Sivannarayana, D/o. Late Cheboina Pothuraju, Hindu, Aged 25 years, Housewife, R/o. Tamarakollu Village of Kaikaluru Mandal, Eluru District.

…....Petitioners.

AND

None

…..Respondent.

This petition is coming on 07.05.2026 day before me for appearance of parties, in the presence of Sri A.Rambabu and Sri A.Santhi Swaroop, Advocates for the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court made the following:

O R D E R

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed this petition U/s. 13 (B) of Hindu

Marriage Act (herein after referred as H.M Act for brevity) for dissolution of their marriage, dated 18.06.2022 by granting decree of divorce on the ground of ‘mutual consent’.

02. The brief facts of the said petition are as follows :

a).The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd petitioner. The marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 took place on 18.06.2022 at Sri

Satyanarayana Swami Vari Devastanam, Annavaram, East Godavari District as per Hindu customs and rites in the presence of relatives, friends and elders.

After their marriage, the 2nd petitioner joined with the 1st petitioner at his house at Vinjaram Village of Kaikalur Mandal, Eluru District to lead happy marital life and they lived happily some period i.e., six months only. Their marriage was also consummated and they have no issues. Thereafter, there are some differences arose between them in the month of March, 2023 and since then both the petitioners have been living separately. Meanwhile, both side elders held some mediation for reunion of both the petitioners, but they did not agree to live together and decided to live separately. The petitioners have been living separately for a period of more than two years and have not been able to live together during the period and there is no possibility of any reconciliation or reunion between them. Therefore, the attempt of the elders of both sides proved futile and as there was no chance for reunion among the petitioners, the elders advised them to obtain decree of divorce from the competent court and that both the petitioners agreed to file the present petition for dissolving of their marriage on the ground of mutual consent. Hence, this petition.

03.IA No.180/2026 is allowed on 07.05.2026 and 6 months period required

U/s 13B(2) of H.M.Act is waived.

04.Petitioners examined as PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 t o P4 were marked no behalf of petitioners.

05. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners.

06. Now the points for consideration is

i). Whether the petitioners are entitled for divorce under mutual

consent by dissolution for marriage, dt.18.06.2022

U/Sec.13(B) of H.M.Act as prayed for?

ii). To what relief?

07.PWs. 1 and 2 in their chief-examination deposed that their marriage was performed on 18.06.2022 at Sri Satyanarayana Swami Vari Devastnam,

Annavaram of East Godavari District as per Hindu customs and rites. In proof of their marriage, Petitioners filed Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Ex.P1 is the

Wedding card of the petitioners, dated 18.06.2022. Ex.P2 is the marriage photo of petitioners. PW.1 and PW.2 deposed that they lived happily for a period of six months only. They further deposed that thereafter disputes arose between them and in the month of March, 2023 they are living separately, deserting and neglecting each other. All the efforts made by elders and well-wishers to unite them proved futile. PW.1 and PW.2 further testified that both the parties are living separately. PW.1 and PW.2 deposed that they decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. Evidence of

Petitioners.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8 th day of May, 2026.

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

KAIKALURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Petitioners :

PW1: Bodavula Sivannarayana.

PW2: Bodavula Kavya Sri @ Cheboina Kavya Sri.

For Respondent: … None ...

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners

Ex.P1 : Marriage Wedding card of the petitioners, dated 18.06.2022.

Ex.P2: Marriage photo of petitioners.

Ex.P3: Verified Aadhar card of petitioner No.1

Ex.P4: Verified Aadhar card of petitioner No.2

For Respondent: … Nil ...

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

KAIKALURU.

Order Record 572 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
H.M.O.P/3/2026	Bodavula sivannarayana vs Nil	08 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/13/2026	Pasupuleti Vinay vs NIl	08 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/30/2026	Nimmala Hema Chandra Subrahmanyam vs Nil	08 May 2026	Order	—
AS/2/2024	Dasari Salmon Raju vs B. Venkata Siva Gopala Rao,	04 May 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/10/2024	Parasa Anjaneyulu vs Parasa Sravani	04 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/90/2025	Teda Syam Prasad vs Nil	29 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/1/2024	Anagani Naga Rama Devi vs Anagani Nagendra Babu	22 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/19/2026	Ballamudi Siromani, Alias Pathe Siromani vs Ballamudi Suresh	22 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/18/2026	Nambula Jayendra Kumar vs NIl	21 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/2/2026	Rajulapati Vamsikrishna vs Rajulapati Swathi	20 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/87/2025	Maruboyina Krishna Kumari Alias Naidu Krishna Kumari vs Maruboyina Durga Prasad	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/4/2026	Katta Rambabu vs Nil	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/8/2024	Pamarthi Veera Venkata Govardhana Rao vs Pamarthi Siri Naga Lakshmi	15 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/80/2025	Pindi Naga Raju vs Pindi Tirupathamma	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/25/2026	Gaderaju Lakshmipathi Raju vs Nil	13 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/70/2025	Parasa Rama Krishna vs Nil	13 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/71/2025	Duppati Tavati Naidu vs Nil	10 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/20/2023	Akkineni Venkata Ratnam vs Anantaneni Narayana Rao	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/3/2024	Talluri Rama Sekhara Rao vs Yalla Prakasarao	06 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/340/2018	Talluri Rama Sekhara Rao vs Yalla Prakasarao	06 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/22/2024	Atluri Srihari Rao vs Atluri Seetharamaiah	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/16/2026	Vannamareddy Tanmayi, Alias Surapaneni Sri Naga Venkata Baby Tanmayi vs Vannemareddy Rajesh	30 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/15/2026	Thota Ramesh vs NIl	26 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/79/2018	Vadapalli Dhana Lakshmi vs Pasam Venkateswara Rao	24 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/11/2025	Gadiraju Revathi Naga Durga vs Gadiraju Naresh	24 Mar 2026	Order	—
EP/6/2022	Sri Chinthamaneni Kasi Viswanadha Brahmanandam vs Tentu Syamala Rao	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/1/2018	Polavarapu Meena vs Eedupuganti Bhargavi	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/210/2018	Gummadi Subbaiah vs Adusumilli Satyanarayana @ Chittibabu	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/283/2018	Polavarapu Meena vs Kakarla Simhachalam	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/22/2026	Kagitha Siva Naga Ganesh vs Nil	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/126/2018	Andraju Venkateswarlu vs Penumatsa Prasada Raju	20 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/14/2026	Immaneni Srinivasu vs NIl	20 Mar 2026	Order	—
EP/1/2024	Jayamangala Venkata Lakshmi vs Jalluri Rambabu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
EP/2/2026	Ghantasala Padma vs Jalluri Rambabu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
IP/9/2022	Budumuri Vijaya Kumari vs Pamidi Nagamani	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
IP/10/2022	Budumuri Vijaya Kumari vs Pamidi Nagamani	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/1/2023	Akula Srinivasa Rao vs Samayam Satyanarayana	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/13/2023	Chekuri Satya Venkata Vijaya Pratap Varma vs Achanta Rama Krishna	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/16/2023	Nekkanti Srinivas vs Dasari Jogeswara Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/34/2023	Bolla Venkateswara Rao vs Dasari Jogeswara Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
IP/11/2023	Bontu Sekhar vs Vallabhaneni Baby Sarojini Devi	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/16/2023	Maradani Ganesh vs Vsmaradani Lakshmi	11 Mar 2026	Order	—
IP/12/2023	Chaparala Seshagiri Rao vs Vallabhaneni Baby Sarojini Devi	10 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/10/2026	Gotru Yedu Kondalu vs Gotru Surekha, Alias Chigurukota Surekha	10 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/12/2026	Bodavula Poojitha vs Bodavula Pavan Kumar	10 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/55/2025	Veeranki Srinivasa Rao vs Veeranki Kalyani	06 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/43/2025	Kolusu Syamala vs Kolusu Rambabu	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/10/2025	Odugu Suresh vs Nil	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/24/2025	Katragadda Venkata Appa Rao vs Nimmagadda Satish Kumar	27 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/87/2023	Boyina Krishna Mohan vs Boyina Syamala Rani	27 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/92/2024	Boyina Syamala Rani vs Boyina krishna Mohan	27 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/138/2018	Agnihotram Atreya Babu vs Kukkala Padmavathi	24 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/6/2026	Katta Maha Lakshmudu vs Katta Sunitha, Alias Matta Sunitha	24 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/65/2024	Mutyala Meena vs Mutyala Rajesh	24 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/13/2024	Penmetsa Suryanarayana Raju vs Mungara Sridevi	20 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/26/2025	Chalamalasetti Venkata Dhana Raj vs Chalamalasetti Sirisha	20 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/8/2026	Penmetcha Satish, Alias Satish Raju vs Nil	19 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
IP/2/2022	Vatturi Pushpa Kumari vs Channam @ Channamsetti Satya Krishna	18 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/12/2024	Rudraraju Sivarama Raju vs Munagala Susmita Chaitanya	18 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/65/2023	Uppanuthala Ramesh vs Uppanuthala sri Kurmaganeswari @ Poorna	18 Feb 2026	Order	—
IP/3/2025	Vatala Srinivasa Rao vs Boddu Uma Maheswara Rao	12 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/1/2021	Cheekatla Rajani Kumari vs Puppala Koteswara Rao	12 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/78/2024	Juthiga Suresh vs Juthiga Madhavi	11 Feb 2026	Other	—
FDP/208/2025	Jawar Chand Jain vs Reddy Seetharavamm	10 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/54/2022	Kowthavarapu Venkata Veera Satya Narayana vs Kowthavarapu Naga Rupavathi	09 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/56/2025	Akula Durga Prasad Anji vs Nil	09 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/69/2022	Kunche Ganesh vs Kunche Naga Satyavathi	04 Feb 2026	Order	—
IP/9/2023	Saidu Krishnaiah vs Ghantasala Kumari	03 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
IP/5/2023	Challagulla Naga Subrahmanyam vs Talluri Durga	30 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/20/2024	Katragadda Padmasri vs Katragada Srinivasa Rao	30 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
AS/9/2023	Mandapalli Koteswaramma vs Yadururi Peddiraju	28 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/65/2021	Gangula Ganga Raju vs Gangula Lakshmi Durga	28 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/93/2025	Samooji Siva Nagendra vs Nill	28 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
IP/6/2023	Saidu Satyanarayana vs Ghantasala Anthervedhi	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/1/2022	Yerramsetti Lakshmi narayana vs Yarramsetti srinivasa babu	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/82/2024	Yerramsetty Srinivasa Babu vs Yerramsetty Lakshmi Narayana	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/183/2018	Aravalli Butcheswara Rao vs Pindi Venkateswarlu Reddy	22 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
AS/6/2024	Ghantasala Trimurthulu vs Mandala Rajamani	21 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
EP/1/2021	Anne Murali Kumar vs Koganti Naga Suvarchala	21 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/24/2024	Sravanam Bharat Chandra vs Nil	09 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/68/2024	Boyina Sravani vs Boyina Siva Naga Raju	08 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/92/2025	Nandamala Priyababu vs NIl	07 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
AS/5/2025	Buruboyina Kanka Chintaiah Raju vs Masimukkula Veera Venkateswara Rao	06 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/25/2024	Neelam Ramaraju vs Neelam Saroja @ Vennala	30 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/84/2025	Mungara Chinnaraju vs Vsnil	30 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
OS/125/2018	Hari Venkateswara Rao vs Hari Murali Krishna	29 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/50/2023	Jayamangala Balakrishna vs Jayamangala Lakshmi	29 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
OS/20/2025	Kunapareddu Balaji vs Guduru Naga Srinu Vara Prasad	23 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/58/2024	Immaneni Jitteswari @ Ankala Jitteswari vs Immaneni Tataji	23 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/83/2025	Sankula Naga sambashiva Rao vs Vssankula lakshmi Bharati Alias Moguluri Lakshmi Bharati	23 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/16/2025	Koppula Syamala vs Koppula Durga Rao	22 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/24/2022	Pindi Srinivas vs Pindi Aswinikumari	22 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
IP/7/2022	Jayamangala Tirupathi Venkanna vs Jayamangala Srimannarayana	18 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
IP/11/2022	Chalamalasetti Nageswara Rao vs Godavarthi Seetharamaiah	16 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
OS/10/2022	Kosaraju Venkata Hari Satya Rama Prasad vs Paruchuri Usha Rani	15 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
EP/6/2024	Gandreti Purna vs Yekula Atchamma	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
EP/9/2023	Puppala Narayana Rao vs Putti Veera Venkata Kishore	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
OS/2/2024	Keethi Venu Aqua Feeds and Needs vs Moru Kondala Rao	12 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
IP/4/2023	Sri Pamarthi Rambabu vs Sri Bale Naga Raju	11 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
OS/19/2025	Gannamaneni Venkateswara Rao vs Yarlagadda Venkata Varun Chowdari	11 Dec 2025	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 572 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		5
Apr 2026		17
Mar 2026		30
Feb 2026		21
Jan 2026		16
Dec 2025		25
Nov 2025		17
Oct 2025		15
Sep 2025		23
Aug 2025		24
Jul 2025		23
Jun 2025		15

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt V.Veera Naga VenkataLakshmi handled?

Smt V.Veera Naga VenkataLakshmi has handled 593 court orders since 2023 at Senior Civil Judges Court Kaikaluru. The average disposal rate is 20 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt V.Veera Naga VenkataLakshmi hear?

Based on available records, Smt V.Veera Naga VenkataLakshmi primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Senior Civil Judges Court Kaikaluru.

Where is Smt V.Veera Naga VenkataLakshmi currently posted?

Smt V.Veera Naga VenkataLakshmi is posted as Senior Civil Judge at Senior Civil Judges Court Kaikaluru, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt V.Veera Naga VenkataLakshmi available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt V.Veera Naga VenkataLakshmi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt V.Veera Naga VenkataLakshmi dispose cases?

Smt V.Veera Naga VenkataLakshmi disposes approximately 20 cases per month, based on 593 orders handled over their tenure at Senior Civil Judges Court Kaikaluru.

Since when is Smt V.Veera Naga VenkataLakshmi serving?

Smt V.Veera Naga VenkataLakshmi has been serving at Senior Civil Judges Court Kaikaluru since 2023. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

H 42%

OS 31%

EP 10%

IP 9%

AS 5%

FDP 2%

SC 1%

S 1%

Posting History

Nov 2023 — Present

Senior Civil Judge · 593 orders

← View all judges at Senior Civil Judges Court Kaikaluru