Vacant Fac T.rajyalakshmi, Scj, Dharmavaram

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District) · Ananthapur · Andhra Pradesh

VACANT FAC T.RAJYALAKSHMI, SCJ, DHARMAVARAM, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, is posted at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 296 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, H, IP cases.

296

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/218/2017

Ellindala Subbi Reddy vs M.Lakshmamma Died by LRs M.Sangamma

27 Aug 2018

In the Court of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapruamu

Present: Smt. T.Rajya Lakshmi, FAC Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu.

Monday, the 27th day of August, 2018.

Original Suit No. 218/2017

Between:

Ellindla Subbi Reddy s/o Late E. Kullayappa.

.......Plaintiff.

And

M. Lakshmanna (Died) by his L.Rs

1. Sangamma w/o Late M. Lakshmanna.

2. M. Gangadevi D/o Late M. Lakshmanna. 3.M. Katamaiah s/o Late M. Lakshmanna

4. V. Ramu s/o Late M. Lakshmanna.

.......Defendants.

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.P. Sreenivasulu and Sri K. Jagadeeswara Reddy,

Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendants having been called absent and set exparte, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement of sale Dt. 6112006 and for costs.

2.The plaint averments are as follows:

One M. Lakshmanna and defendant No.4 are the absolute owners of plaint schedule mentioned property. They are father and son. They approached the plaintiff and offered to sell the plaint schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the plaint schedule mentioned property for sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ after prolonged negotiations. M. Lakshmanna and defendant No.4 jointly executed permanent agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff on 6112006 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property for Rs. 10,00,000/ and they have 2 taken amount of Rs. 9,50,000/ on the date of agreement of sale i.e., on 6112006 towards part of sale consideration amount, M. Lakshmanna and defendant No.4 agreed to receive the balance of sale consideration of

Rs. 50,000/ from the plaintiff whenever execute regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with regard to plaint schedule property as stipulated in the agreement of sale. Time is not essence of the contract.

The plaintiff is always ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration amount of Rs. 50,000/ as stipulated in the agreement of sale and ready to take regular registered sale deed in his favour. The plaintiff offered Rs. 50,000/ to M. Lakshmanna and D.4 balance of sale consideration amount and asked them to execute the regular registered sale deed as stipulated in the agreement of sale but they did not take amount and gave evasive reply. Said Lakshmanna died leaving behind his L.Rs D.1 to D.4 i.e., wife and children. They are living as undivided

Hindu joint family members. The D.1 to D.4 are enjoying the assets of deceased M. lakshmanna. After death of M. Lakshmanna, the plaintiff approached the defendants personally and asked to execute the regular regd. Sale deed with regard to the plaintiff schedule mentioned property after receiving balance of sale consideration amount of Rs. 50,000/. D.1 to D.4 agreed to take balance of sale consideration amount of Rs. 50,000/ and execute the regular registered sale deed infavour of the plaintiff, but postponing the same on one pretext or another. Immediately the plaintiff got issued registered legal notice to D.1 to D.4 on 2132017 stating that he will wait at Sub Registrar Office, Anantapuramu on 30032017 with balance of sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/ from 10 a.m and 5 p.m and demanded the defendants to come over to Sub Registrar office,

Anantapuramu to take balance of sale consideration amount from him and register schedule mentioned property in his favour. The plaintiff waited at 3 Sub Registrar Office, Anantapuramu on 30032017 from 10 a.m and 5 p.m with balance of sale consideration amount of Rs. 50,000/ as mentioned in the notice Dt. 2132017 but the defendants did not come to Sub Registrar office, Anantapuramu on that day . The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the defendants are not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract . Hence he constrained to file the suit.

3. Defendants remained exparte.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff is examined as Pw.1 and Ex. A.1 to

A.6 are marked.

5. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.

6. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of

agreement of sale Dt. 6112006 as prayed for?

Point: Plaintiff is seeking to direct the defendants to execute regular registered sale deed in his favour in pursuance of agreement of sale

Dt. 6112006. The plaintiff examined as Pw.1 stated that one

Lakshmanna and D.4 are the absolute owners of plaint schedule mentioned property and they offered to sell the plaint schedule property to him for sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ and executed Ex.A.1 agreement of sale and they have taken amount of Rs. 9,50,000/ towards advance on the date of agreement of sale and agreed to receive remaining balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/ from him whenever execute registered sale deed and he is always ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration and thereby to perform his part of contract and approached them to receive balance sale consideration and execute sale deed but they did not turn up and said Lakshmanna died and after his death, he 4 requested his L.Rs i.e.,D.1 to D.4 and even he issued Ex.A.2 legal notice

Dt. 2132017 covered by Ex.A.3 to Ex.A.6 returned postal cover with

acknowledgments demanding them to execute sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration but they did not come forward to execute the sale deed by receiving balance of sale consideration and thereby failed to perform their part of contract and therefore prayed to direct them to execute registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration. The defendants not disputed the version of plaintiff. They remained exparte.

So the evidence of Pw.1 became undisputed. The undisputed evidence of

Pw.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 speak that M. Lakshmanna and D.4 are owners of the plaint schedule property and executed Ex.A.1 agreement of sale

Dt. 6112006 agreeing to sell it for Rs. 10,00,000/ and received

Rs. 9,50,000/ towards advance on the date of agreement of sale and plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying balance sale consideration and approached the defendants and got issued Ex.A.2 legal notice demonding them to receive balance sale consideration and execute sale deed and it is the defendants who did not come forward to receive balance sale consideration and execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and thereby failed to perform their part of contract. When the plaintiff paid major portion of sale consideration and is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract with balance sale consideration and the defendants failed to perform their part of contract by receiving balance sale consideration from the plaintiff and execute sale deed in spite of his demands and issuance of legal notice, the defendants can be directed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of agreement of sale Dt. 6112006 by receiving balance sale consideration within 3 months. Therefore, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

7. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of agreement of sale Dt. 6112006 within 3 months by receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/. If the defendants fail to do so, the plaintiff can get it done through process of law.

Dictated to the Stenographer,transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of August, 2018.

FAC/Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Anantapuramu.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW 1: E. Subbi Reddy None.

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Original agreement of sale Dt.6112006.

Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice Dt. 21032017.

Ex.A.3 Returned postal cover with acknowledgment of D.1.

Ex.A.4 Returned postal cover with acknowledgment of D.2.

Ex.A.5 Returned postal cover with acknowledgment of D.3.

Ex.A.6 Returned postal cover with acknowledgment of D.4.

Exhibits marked for defendants:

Nil.

A. S.C.J.

...

OS/72/2018

E.Ramachandra REddy vs L.Sudhakar

14 Aug 2018

1

In the Court of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapruamu

Present: Smt. T.Rajya Lakshmi, FAC Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu.

Tuesday, the 14th day of August, 2018.

Original Suit No. 72/2018

Between:

E. Ramachandra Reddy s/o E. Haumantha Reddy, aged 65 years,

Hindu, business r/o D.No. 1/3/213, Rangaswamy Nagar, 4 th Road,

Anantapuramu city.

.......Plaintiff.

And

L. Sudhakar s/o L. Salman Raju, aged 30 years, Christian Junior

Assistant, r/o D.No. 13/2/258, R.C. Nagar, Anantapuramu now

residing at Executive Engineer Office, HNSS division No. V D.No.

17/12/1215,, Rajendra Nagar, Guntakal town.

.......Defendant.

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Lakshminarayana Reddy, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent and set exparte, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit amount of Rs. 6,55,598/ with future interest and costs on the strength of A. to D marked promissory notes and for costs.

2. The plaint averments are as follows:

On 562015, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % p.a and executed A marked promissory note in favour of plaintiff. The defendant also borrowed another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ in cash from the plaintiff on 962015 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % p.a and executed the suit B to D marked promissory notes in favour of plaintiff 2 on the same day each for Rs. 50,000/. The defendant borrowed the said amount for his family necessities. In spite of demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid any thing either towards the principal or interest. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. The defendant is not entitled for any agricultural debt relief Act as he is government employee. Hence, the suit for recovery of amount.

3. The defendant remained exparte.

4. On behalf of the Plaintiff, PW.1 is examined and Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.4 are marked on his behalf.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the Point for determination is: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?”

7. Point:: It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ in cash from him for his family necessities on 562015 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % p.a and executed A marked promissory note in his favour and again he borrowed another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ in cash from him on 962015 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % p.a and executed B to D marked promissory notes in his favour on the same day each for Rs. 50,000/ and later failed to repay the amount due despite the demands made by him.

8. In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 reiterating the plaint averments and exhibited Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. Ex.A.1 is A marked promissory note Dt. 562015, Ex.A.2 is B marked promissory note Dt. 962015, Ex.A.3 is C marked promissory note Dt. 962015 and

Ex.A.4 is D marked promissory note Dt. 962015. A perusal of Ex.A.1 speak that the defendant borrowed Rs. Rs. 2,50,000/ in cash from the 3 plaintiff on 562015 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % p.a and evidencing it, he executed A marked pronote and Ex.A.2 to A.4 speak that defendant also borrowed another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ in cash from the plaintiff on 962015 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % p.a and evidencing it executed the suit B to D marked promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff on the same day each for Rs. 50,000/ and later failed to pay the amount. The defendant did not choose to contest the matter and dispute the evidence of plaintiff. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff became undisputed.

9. The oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff establish that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. Rs. 2,50,000/ in cash from the plaintiff on 562015 and he also borrowed another sum of Rs.

1,50,000/ in cash from the plaintiff on 962015 and executed Ex.A.1 to

A.4 promissory notes on respective dates in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % and later failed to repay due in spite of demands and became due to the plaintiff. Thus, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim as prayed for. Therefore, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 6,55,598/ together with subsequent interest @ 12 % p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till the date of realization on adjudged amount of Rs. 6,55,598/

Directly dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14th day of August, 2018

FAC/Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Anantapuramu.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff:Defendant:

PW 1: E. Ramachandra Reddy None.

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : A marked suit pronote, dt 562015.

Ex.A.2 : B marked promissory note Dt. 962015.

Ex.A.3: C marked promissory note Dt. 962015.

Ex.A.4 D marked promissory note Dt. 962015

Exhibits marked for defendant:

Nil

A. S.C.J.

...

OS/74/2017

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs N.Viswanatha Naidu

21 Aug 2018

Page 1 of 4

In the Court of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu

Present: Smt. T.Rajya Lakshmi,

FAC Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu.

Tuesday, the 21 st day of August, 2018.

Original Suit No. 74/2017

Between:

State Bank of India Rep by its Chief Manager, ADB branch, Anantapuramu.

....Plaintiff.

And

N. Viswanatha Naidu s/o N. Pedda Venkata Ramappa, Hindu, age 53 years Kadadarakunta village,Kuderu mandal., Anantapuramu District.

....Defendant.

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt V. Vijaya Lakshmi, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent and set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The suit is filed on behalf of the plaintiff/bank for passing of preliminary decree for recovery of money.

2. The relevant brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/ from the plaintiff bank for the purchase of tractor and tralley on 11062004 and agreed to repay the said amount in 9 yearly installments at Rs. 45,000/ + interest and further agreed to repay the loan amount together with interest 10.00 % with subject to fluctuations from time to time as per the directions of Reserve Bank of

India and he executed agreement of hypothecation on 11062004 and he also executed registered mortgage deed infavour of bank under deed No.

5361/2004 Dt. 862004 and later failed to repay the loan amount. The plaintiff demanded for repayment of above loan amount but the defendant did not pay either principle or interest. The defendant renewed

Page 2 of 4 the loan on 20052007, 242010, 132013 and 1812014. As per the account extract of the plaintiff bank, the defendant is liable to pay

Rs. 8,42,312/ with future interest. Hence the suit.

3. Defendant remained exparte.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff Bank, PW.1 is examined and Exs.A.1 to

A.7 are marked.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

6. Now the point for determination is “Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for the preliminary decree as prayed for?”

7. Point:: PW.1, N. Ramesh is the Manager of plaintiff bank. His oral evidence is in terms of plaint. Through him Exs.A.1 to A.7 are marked. Ex.A.1 is Hypothecation agreement Dt 11062004. Ex.A.2 is registered mortgage deed Dt. 862004, Ex.A.3 is account extract, Ex,.A.4 is Revival letter Dt. 20052007, Ex.A.5 is Revival letter Dt. 242010,

Ex.A.6 is Revival letter Dt. 132013 and Ex.A.7 is revival letter

Dt. 1812014. P.W.1 has reiterated plaint pleadings in his affidavit to the

effect that the defendant availed the loan of Rs.4,00,000/ and executed

Ex.A.1 Hypothecation agreement undertaking to repay the same with interest as per the terms and conditions and mortgaged the schedule property by executing Ex.A.2 simple mortgage deed as a security for the loan and he also acknowledged the debt due by him by executing Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.7 revival letters and later failed to pay the loan amount in spite of demands and became due to the plaintiff bank as per Ex.A.3 Account

Extract. The defendant did not choose to contest the matter and did not dispute the evidence of Pw.1. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence of

P.W.1 became undisputed.

8. The oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff establish that defendant availed loan of Rs. 4,00,000/ from plaintiff bank and executed

Ex.A.1 hypothecation agreement and Ex.A.2 simple mortgage deed

Page 3 of 4 agreeing to repay the loan amount and keeping the schedule property as a security for the loan and also acknowledged the debt and subsequently failed to discharge the debt in spite of demands and became due to the tune of Rs. 8,42,312/ and thus, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim as prayed for. Therefore, the point is answered infavour of the plaintiff.

9. In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs for a sum of Rs. 8,42,312/ together with subsequent interest @ 10 % p.a. on

Rs. 4,00,000/ from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6 % p.a. till the date of realization. Three months time is granted for redemption. If the defendant fails to pay the preliminary decree amount, the plaintiff is at liberty to file a petition for Final Decree with a view to bring the schedule property for sale for realization of the decretal amount in accordance with law. A preliminary decree shall be drawn up accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of August, 2018.

FAC/ Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Anantapuramu

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW 1: N. Ramesh, Manager, None.

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 is Hypothecation agreement Dt 11062004.

Ex.A.2 is registered mortgage deed Dt. 862004,

Ex.A.3 is account extract,

Ex,.A.4 Revival letter Dt. 20052007,

Page 4 of 4

Ex.A.5 is Revival letter Dt. 242010,

Ex.A.6 is Revival letter Dt. 132013 and

Ex.A.7 is revival letter Dt. 1812014.

Exhibits marked for defendant:

Nil.

A.S.C.J.

...

OS/20/2018

P.Sudheer Reddy vs N.Khaza Mainuddin

25 Jul 2018

1

In the Court of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapruamu

Present: Smt. T.Rajya Lakshmi, FAC Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu.

Wednesday, the 25th day of July, 2018.

Original Suit No.20/2018

Between:

P. Sudheer Reddy s/o P. Rami Reddy, aged 32 years, Business, Sri

Nidhi Enterprises, D.No. 15/791, 1 st floor, Kamala Nagar,

Anantapuramu.

.......Plaintiff.

And

N. Khaja Mainuddin son of Late N. Fakruddin, aed 28 years,

Business D.No. 15/791, Kamalanagar Anantapuramu.

.......Defendant.

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri H. Rama Subramanyam, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent and set exparte, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit amount of Rs. 14,76,000/ with future interest and costs on the strength of the promissory note Dt. 452015 and for costs.

2.The plaint averments are as follows:

The plaintiff is running the printing press under the name and style

Sri Nidhi Enterprises in the house of defendant. Due to intimacy, defendant approached the plaintiff seeking financial help for his necessities and on 452015, he borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/ from the plaintiff and executed the suit pronote on the same day, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. The plaintiff made several demands for repayment of amount due under the pronote. But the defendant failed to pay the amount. The defendant is not entitled any 2 benefits of Act 4/38 or any other enactments. Hence, the suit for recovery of amount.

3.The defendant remained exparte.

4.On behalf of the Plaintiff, PW.1 is examined and Ex.A.1 and

Ex.A.2 are marked on his behalf.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the Point for determination is: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?”

Point:: It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/ on 04052015 and executed a demand promissory note in favour of him, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% p.a. and later failed to repay the same, despite the demands made by him.

7. In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 reiterating the plaint averments and exhibited Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2.

Ex.A.1 is suit pronote, dt 04052015, Ex.A.2 is office copy of legal notice with postal receipt Dt. 17012018. A perusal of Ex.A.1 speaks that the defendant borrowed Rs. 9,00,000/ on 04052015 from the plaintiff for his necessities and evidencing it he executed it agreeing to repay it with interest at 24 % p.a. A perusal of Ex.A.2 legal notice reveals that the plaintiff made demands to the defendant for repayment of amount due under pronote. The defendant did not choose to contest the matter and dispute the evidence of plaintiff. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff became undisputed.

8. The oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff establish that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.9,00,000/ on 04052015 3 from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A.1 suit pronote agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % and subsequently failed to repay it in spite of demands and issuance of legal notice and became due to the plaintiff.

Thus, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim as prayed for. Therefore, the point is answered infavour of the plaintiff.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 14,76,000/ together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till the date of realization on adjudged amount

Rs. 14,76,000/.

Directly dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 25th day of July, 2018

FAC/ Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Anantapuramu.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW 1: P. Sudheer Reddy None.

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1/Promissory note Dt. 4052015

Ex.A.2Office copy of legal notice Dt., 17012018

Exhibits marked for defendant:

Nil

A. S.C.J.

...

OS/254/2018

J.Prasad Rao vs A.Ramanjineyulu

21 Aug 2018

In the Court of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapruamu

Present: Smt. T.Rajya Lakshmi, FAC Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu.

Tuesday, the 21st day of August, 2018.

Original Suit No. 254/2018

Between:

J. Prasada Rao s/o Late J. Venkoba Rao., 66 years, Hindu, business,

resident of D.No. 442, 1 st road, Anantapuramu city & District.

.......Plaintiff.

And

A. Ramanjineyulu s/o Late M.K. Rayudu, 56 years, Hindu, employee

in Anantapuramu Municipal corporation in births and deaths

department, resident of D.No. 5868, 5 th road, Anantapuramu.

.......Defendant.

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.M. Surendra Kumar, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent and set exparte, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit amount of Rs. 3,94,680/ with future interest and costs on the strength of the promissory note Dt. 752015 and for costs.

2.The plaint averments are as follows:

On 752015, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/ from the plaintiff for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed the suit pronote on the same day. Later, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid any amount either towards principal or interest. The defendant is not agriculturist and he is not entitled to any benefits under Act 4 of 38 as he is an employee. Hence, the suit for recovery of amount.

3.The defendant remained exparte.

4. On behalf of the Plaintiff, PW.1 is examined and Ex.A.1 is marked on his behalf.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the Point for determination is: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?”

7. Point:: It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/ from him on 752015 agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% p.a. and executed a demand promissory note in his favour and later failed to repay the same, despite the demands made by him.

8. In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself as

PW.1 reiterating the plaint averments and exhibited Ex.A.1.

Ex.A.1 is suit pronote, dt 752015. A perusal of Ex.A.1 speak that the defendant borrowed Rs. 2,30,000/ on 752015 from the plaintiff for his necessities agreeing to repay it with interest at 24 % p.a. and evidencing it he has executed it. The defendant did not choose to contest the matter and dispute the evidence of plaintiff. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff became undisputed.

9.The oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff establish that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/ on 752015 from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % and executed Ex.A.1 suit pronote and subsequently failed to repay it in spite of demands and became due to the plaintiff. Thus, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim as prayed for. Therefore, the point is answered infavour of the plaintiff.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,94,680/ together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till the date of realization on adjudged amount

Rs. 3,94,680/.

Directly dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of August, 2018

Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Anantapuramu.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW 1: J. Prasada Rao None.

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1/752015Promissory note for Rs. 2,30,000/.

Exhibits marked for defendant:

Nil

S.C.J.

...

Order Record 293 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/126/2018	C.A.Govindarajulu vs Tammineni Rangaiah Chowdry	29 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/199/2017	Maddineni Roopa vs Nellore Sreenivasa Chowdary	28 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/218/2017	Ellindala Subbi Reddy vs M.Lakshmamma Died by LRs M.Sangamma	27 Aug 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/152/2017	Thota Lavanya vs Pathapati Lokeswar Rao	27 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/197/2017	Sake Veera Bhushana vs Sake Mallika @ Niharika	27 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/74/2017	STATE BANK OF INDIA vs N.Viswanatha Naidu	21 Aug 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/152/2017	Myagalamani Lalithamma vs Talakai Chennamma and 12 others	21 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/254/2018	J.Prasad Rao vs A.Ramanjineyulu	21 Aug 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/732/2017	State Bank of India Rep. By its Chief Manager, ADB Branch, Anantapuramu vs Allu Lakshmanna	21 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/21/2018	Akula Rushingulu vs NIL	21 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/684/2017	K.Samsum Sudheer Kumar vs C.Nagamma	20 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/100016/2010	D.FAKRUDDIN vs T.VENKATA RAMANA	20 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/100370/2010	A.PRABHAKAR NAIDU vs THAMMINENI VENKATA RAMANA	20 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/10/2018	R. Sunitha vs NIL	20 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/231/2017	Kampalli Raghamala @ Harshitha vs Allu Chandra Babu Naidu	20 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/72/2018	E.Ramachandra REddy vs L.Sudhakar	14 Aug 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/110/2017	Kulasekar Mounika vs M.Subramanyam	14 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/170/2017	Ediga Meenakshi vs Dasigowni Bhaskar	14 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/232/2017	Rapthadu Ramu vs C. Bhagya Lakshmi	14 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/264/2017	Vadla Bharathi vs Vadla Bramhaiah	14 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/144/2018	V.Sarojamma vs C.Venkataramudu	13 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/152/2017	Thota Lavanya vs Pathapati Lokeswar Rao	13 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/169/2017	Palyam Roja vs Kamsala Satish	13 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/259/2017	Dasari Manjunath vs Bareedu Sobharani	13 Aug 2018	Copy of Order	—
IP/1/2018	K. Narayana Swamy vs Shegu Nagendra Guptha	25 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/20/2018	P.Sudheer Reddy vs N.Khaza Mainuddin	25 Jul 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/76/2018	M.Chenna Reddy vs B.A.Damodhar Murthy	25 Jul 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/191/2015	Nallapa reddy Lakshmi vs Vennapusula chennakesava reddy	25 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/256/2017	Smt B. Lakshmi vs M. Sivanna	25 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
IP/60/2016	A. Virupaksha Reddy vs M.A.Lakshmi Narayanamma	24 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/568/2017	A.Chandrasekhar vs D.Sivaiah	18 Jul 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100008/2010	SUNKU LAKSHMI DEVI vs H.OBULESU	18 Jul 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/90/2018	P.Ramesh Babu vs M.Prasad	17 Jul 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/420/2012	P.Swamy Naidu vs The project Director,	17 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/160/2017	Byalla Uma Maheswari @ Haritha vs Chithra Hari	17 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/100/2013	Karuru Jaipal Reddy vs Kaluvapalli Lakshmi	16 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/110/2018	M.Dharani vs K.Abraham	16 Jul 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/346/2013	G.Adinarayana vs G.Yellappa	16 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/260/2017	Yelamkuri Anjinamma @ T. Anjinamma @ Kamakshi vs Jenne Obulaiah	16 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/86/2013	saddala Lakshmi vs The Authorized Signatory	11 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/100482/2008	T.PRANITHA MINOR vs T.SRINIVASULU	11 Jul 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/263/2017	V. Swathi vs B. Pradeep Kumar	11 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
IP/1/2016	G.Mashesh vs Vs1. S.K.Raghu	10 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/56/2017	Konakanchi Satya Narayana vs Konakanchi Keshava Narayana	10 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/408/2013	G.Vansanth kumar vs G.Lakshmamma	10 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/147/2017	Sira Varalakshmi vs Neelagiri Mallikarjuna	10 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
IP/74/2013	T.Uma Shankar vs M.Satyavathi	09 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/514/2015	T.Pushpalatha aged 58 years vs Konduri Eswari Devi aged 53 years	09 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
SC/155/2017	Sub Inspector of Police vs Harijana Votla Sriramulu	09 Jul 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/4/2018	Mangala Venkata Jayakrishna vs NIL	09 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/211/2017	M.Guru Raju vs Smt M.Geetha	09 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/82/2018	State Bank of India Rep. By its Manager, Narpala Branch vs Jampugumpula Satya Vani@ Sathyavani	04 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/172/2017	Kunthuru Madhava Reddy vs K.Ramachandra Reddy	04 Jul 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/222/2017	A.Subramanyam vs G.Haritha	04 Jul 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/464/2013	A.Virupakshi Reddy vs M.A.Lakshminarayanamma	04 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/648/2015	Patil Sainath Reddy aged 41 years vs N.Vijaya Bhaskar aged 32 years	04 Jul 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/728/2017	State Bank of India Rep By its Chief Manager, ADB Branch, Anantapuramu vs Tamarla Obi reddy, died by Lrs, 1. T.Narasamma	04 Jul 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/242/2017	Bandi Nirmala vs NIL	27 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/208/2017	Maddineni Divya @ K. Divya vs Maddineni Rangaiah	26 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/118/2013	H.M.Ashok vs H.M.Viswanathaswamy	25 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/158/2013	Addula Guru Vikram Sagar vs Kakarla Nagendra Kumar	25 Jun 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/41/2013	K.S DINESH vs R.KUSUMAMBHA	22 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/654/2017	Kamma Nagesh vs Polarpu Ranganna	20 Jun 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/34/2017	P.Rama Krishna vs P.Latha	20 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/510/2016	Golla Rathnamma vs B.Siddappa	19 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/14/2018	M.Chenna Reddy vs M. Pothulaiah	18 Jun 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/540/2017	K.Brahmananda Reddy vs J.Veeresh	18 Jun 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/254/2017	Purimetla Sai Rupa vs NIL	18 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/131/2017	Yelava Janardhan vs Yelava pavani	13 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/464/2016	State Bank of India, Rep by its Cjief Manager vs U.Kondamma	12 Jun 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/31/2015	T.Sharadamma @ Lakshmi Sharada aged 40 years vs S.Ramakrishna Naik aged about 33 years	12 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/62/2012	T.Sreenivasulu vs K.Mahaboob Dowla	11 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/670/2017	State Bank of India Rep. by iots Chief Manager, Bukkaraya Samudram Branch, Anantapuramu vs R.MallaiKarjuna	11 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/25/2013	Ediga Raghavendra Gowd vs E.Saraladevi	11 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/230/2017	B. Nagachenna Reddy vs NIL	11 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/100254/2008	YERUKALA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA REDDY vs T.SRIVANI	06 Jun 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/173/2014	Challa Rajendra Prasad aged about 35 years vs Chall Bhuvaneswari aged about 30 years	06 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
SC/472/2016	Sub Inspector of Police, Mahila PS vs Korapothula Thrilok Chandar	05 Jun 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/187/2017	Badeddula Yerriswamy @ M. Yerriswamy vs Badeddula Lakshmi @ B. Marekka	05 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/204/2017	Banda Raju vs NIL	05 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/48/2018	K.Umapathi vs K.Shanthamma	04 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/618/2017	S.Sanganna vs D.Suryanarayana	04 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/72/2017	Y.Venkatesulu vs Y.Rajani	04 Jun 2018	Copy of Order	—
IP/40/2017	Vardhireddigari Chennamma vs J. Anitha @ J Anitha Jayaram	02 May 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/95/2017	B.Yogesh vs U.parvathi	02 May 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/240/2017	Gudi Gowri Sankar vs Here Math Saraswathi	02 May 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/105/2014	M.Venugopal aged 29 years vs Vasantha Lakshmi aged 28 years	01 May 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/202/2017	V. Jayaramudu vs Derangula Jayalakshmi	01 May 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/650/2015	State Bank of India Kalyandurg vs A.Sivalakshimdevi aged 48 years	30 Apr 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/652/2015	state Bank of India Kalyandurg vs A.Bhupathi Naidu aged 50 years	30 Apr 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/100060/2011	Tharimela Salvadi mohan vs Tharimela Salvadi Krishna murthy	30 Apr 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/167/2017	Boya Swathi vs NIL	30 Apr 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/209/2017	Chakali Meenakshi vs Chakali Thimmaraju	30 Apr 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/64/2017	STATE BANK OF INDIA vs T.Sayamma	25 Apr 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/556/2011	K.RAHIMBEE vs K. PEDDA BABULU	25 Apr 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/11/2018	Kamsala Surendra vs K. Y. Kalpana	25 Apr 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/40/2017	B.Rama Murthy vs Smt.C.Rajeswari	25 Apr 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/59/2017	Gunjara Ram Prasad vs Chinthalapalli Aswini	25 Apr 2018	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/97/2017	Smt.E.Hemalatha vs NIL	25 Apr 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/422/2012	Ratnam Veera Venkata Subramanyam vs The project Director,	24 Apr 2018	Copy of Order	—

Showing 100 of 293 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Aug 2018		24
Jul 2018		33
Jun 2018		26
May 2018		5
Apr 2018		35
Mar 2018		25
Feb 2018		24
Jan 2018		22
Dec 2017		29
Nov 2017		29
Oct 2017		29
Sep 2017		15

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has VACANT FAC T.RAJYALAKSHMI, SCJ, DHARMAVARAM handled?

VACANT FAC T.RAJYALAKSHMI, SCJ, DHARMAVARAM has handled 296 court orders since 2017 at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District). The average disposal rate is 25 orders per month.

What types of cases does VACANT FAC T.RAJYALAKSHMI, SCJ, DHARMAVARAM hear?

Based on available records, VACANT FAC T.RAJYALAKSHMI, SCJ, DHARMAVARAM primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Cases) at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District).

Where is VACANT FAC T.RAJYALAKSHMI, SCJ, DHARMAVARAM currently posted?

VACANT FAC T.RAJYALAKSHMI, SCJ, DHARMAVARAM is posted as Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by VACANT FAC T.RAJYALAKSHMI, SCJ, DHARMAVARAM available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by VACANT FAC T.RAJYALAKSHMI, SCJ, DHARMAVARAM are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does VACANT FAC T.RAJYALAKSHMI, SCJ, DHARMAVARAM dispose cases?

VACANT FAC T.RAJYALAKSHMI, SCJ, DHARMAVARAM disposes approximately 25 cases per month, based on 296 orders handled over their tenure at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District).

Since when is VACANT FAC T.RAJYALAKSHMI, SCJ, DHARMAVARAM serving?

VACANT FAC T.RAJYALAKSHMI, SCJ, DHARMAVARAM has been serving at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District) since 2017.

Case Types

OS 56%

H 33%

IP 4%

SC 3%

EP 2%

CC 0%

SCC 0%

OP 0%

Posting History

Sep 2017 — Aug 2018

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur · 296 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri. E Bhima Rao

Principal District and Sessions Judge

1,187 orders

Smt. C. Satya Vani

I Addl. District Judge

0 orders

Sri D. Ramulu IIADJ

II Addl. District Judge

0 orders

Smt N Satyasri

III Addl. District Judge

0 orders

B.babu Naik

IV Addl. District Judge

3 orders

T.kesava

SC/ST Court Cum Addl. District Judge

19 orders

Sri G Sridevi

Chairman Cum Labor Court, Anantapur

185 orders

Sri C.N.Murthy

VII ADJ - Cum - Judge Family Court

0 orders

Smt A Padma

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

635 orders

G.shiva Prasad Yadav

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

833 orders

Sri K Bala Koteswara Rao

Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistra...

1,158 orders

Smt. Harika Ravuri

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Judl. Magist...

704 orders

D. Pavani

Spl.JFCM Mobile for trial of cases under PCR Act C...

41 orders

← View all judges at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District)

Vacant Fac T.rajyalakshmi, Scj, Dharmavaram

Original Suit No. 218/2017

JUDGMENT

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of

FAC/Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Exhibits marked for defendants:

A. S.C.J.

...

1

Original Suit No. 72/2018

E. Ramachandra Reddy s/o E. Haumantha Reddy, aged 65 years,

Hindu, business r/o D.No. 1/3/213, Rangaswamy Nagar, 4 th Road,

L. Sudhakar s/o L. Salman Raju, aged 30 years, Christian Junior

Assistant, r/o D.No. 13/2/258, R.C. Nagar, Anantapuramu now

residing at Executive Engineer Office, HNSS division No. V D.No.

JUDGMENT

A. S.C.J.

Present:­ Smt. T.Rajya Lakshmi,

FAC Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu.

Tuesday, the 21 st day of August, 2018.

Original Suit No. 74/2017

JUDGMENT

FAC/ Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Exhibits marked for defendant:

A.S.C.J.

1

Original Suit No.20/2018

P. Sudheer Reddy s/o P. Rami Reddy, aged 32 years, Business, Sri

Nidhi Enterprises, D.No. 15/791, 1 st floor, Kamala Nagar,

N. Khaja Mainuddin son of Late N. Fakruddin, aed 28 years,

JUDGMENT

FAC/ Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Exhibits marked for defendant:

A. S.C.J.

...

Original Suit No. 254/2018

J. Prasada Rao s/o Late J. Venkoba Rao., 66 years, Hindu, business,

A. Ramanjineyulu s/o Late M.K. Rayudu, 56 years, Hindu, employee

in Anantapuramu Municipal corporation in births and deaths

JUDGMENT

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

Exhibits marked for plaintiff:

Exhibits marked for defendant:

S.C.J.

...

Present: Smt. T.Rajya Lakshmi,