VijayaKumar Reddy

Junior Civil Judge

VI Addl. District Judge (FTC) Anantapur at Gooty, Gooty (Taluka) · Ananthapur · Andhra Pradesh

VijayaKumar Reddy, Junior Civil Judge, is posted at VI Addl. District Judge (FTC) Anantapur at Gooty, Gooty (Taluka), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 277 court orders on record since 2022. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

277

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/255/2022

M.Meharoon vs M.Noor Bahsa

20 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GOOTY.

Present: Sri. V. VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Gooty.

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.255 of 2022

Mulla Meharoon, W/o M.M.Noor Basha, Muslim Aged about 38 years, Housewife, Resident of D.No.5/195, H.M.Street, Gooty town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. ..Plaintif -Vs-

Mulla Noor Basha, S/o M.Chinna Bashu, Muslim, Aged about 44 years, Resident of D.No.8/504, 4th lane, B.C.Colony, Majid back side, Gooty town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

..Defendant

This suit came up on 13.04.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Krishnaiah and Sri T.Dhanunjaya, learned Advocates for the Plaintif and the defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing both for the counsel for the plaintif, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

This is a suit filed by the plaintif with a prayer to pass a decree in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant dissolving the marriage dated 29.06.2003 solemnized in between the plaintif and defendant and for costs of the suit and for such other relief or reliefs as this Court deems and proper in the circumstances of the suit in the interest of justice.

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

(a) That, the plaintif is the legally wedded wife of defendant and the marriage between the plaintif and defendant was solemnized as per rites and customs prevailed in the Muslim Religion at the resident of plaintif at

Kasapuram village, Guntakal Mandal on 29.06.2003. At the time of marriage, the parents of plaintif presented 05 thulas of gold ornaments and cash of

Rs.50,000/- and the marriage was performed at the costs of parents of plaintif to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. After the marriage, the plaintif joined with the

JCJ, Gooty 2 of 5 OS No.255 of 2022 defendant to live happy marital life at Gooty town at the house of defendant and the marriage was consummated. The plaintif lived happily with the defendant for a period of 05 years and there are no issues to the plaintif and defendant. Later, the defendant started to demand additional dowry from the parents of plaintif, but the plaintif refused to heed the illegal and immoral demand of the defendant as her parents are aged persons and not having such capacity to give additional dowry. On that, the defendant started non- cooperation movement in the house and he stopped to provide minimum needs to the plaintif and also not provided any household material to the plaintif. The defendant alone cooks food for him only and used to swallow the same without feeding the plaintif. At great difficulty, the plaintif bore all these harassment of the defendant with a pond hope that things may be improved.

(b) When the plaintif is not heeded the illegal and immoral demand of

additional dowry the defendant started to refuse cohabitation with the plaintif

and used to threaten the plaintif with dire consequences that he is going to contract second marriage with another lady and inspite of repeated requests of plaintif, the defendant never changed his attitude and continued his harassment towards her without any sufficient reason. On that, the plaintif and his parents tried to reunion with the defendant and to lead happy conjugal life, but the defendant has refused to join with the plaintif. In this regard several panchayaths were held and in that panchayaths the elders advised the defendant to join with the plaintif, but he turned a deaf ear and refused to join with the plaintif. Without any just and sufficient cause, the defendant deserted the plaintif and not joined with the plaintif even after several requests made by her and since May, 2020 the defendant is living separately from the plaintif.

The defendant is not behaving as a duty bound husband since the beginning and it seems that the defendant is also not willing to lead happy marital life with the plaintif. As there is no possibility of reunion of plaintif and defendant as the defendant himself stating that he is not intending to lead marital life

JCJ, Gooty 3 of 5 OS No.255 of 2022 with the plaintif and so the plaintif decided to take divorce in addition to that the defendant subjected the plaintif to cruelty and deserted the plaintif since

May 2020 without any sufficient reason and so the plaintif is constrained to file this suit for grant of decree of divorce by dissolving her marriage with the defendant dated 28.06.2003. Hence, the suit.

3.Despite of service of summons, the defendant did not choose to appear before the Court and he remained exparte to the suit proceedings on 21.10.2022. Hence, posted the suit for plaintif’s side evidence.

4.To prove the version of the plaintif, the plaintif got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked the Wedding card of the plaintif and defendant,

dated 29.06.2003 as Ex.A1.

5.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintif. Perused the material available on record.

6.Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of

dissolution of marriage between the plaintiff and

defendant dated 29.03.2003 as prayed for ?

7.POINT:

The plaintif in order to prove her contention, she herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1. A perusal of Ex.A1 Original Wedding card of plaintif and defendant, it discloses that the plaintif’s marriage was solemnized with the defendant on 29.06.2003 at Kasapuram village of Guntakal Mandal at the house of plaintif as per their rites and customs prevailed in their community in the presence of both side family members and elders and well wishers.

8.On coming to the oral evidence of PW.1, it is nothing but replica of plaint. It goes to show that the PW.1 and defendant are belongs to Muslim community and their marriage was performed 29.06.2003 at Kasapuram village of Guntakal Mandal at the house of plaintif as per their Muslim rites and

JCJ, Gooty 4 of 5 OS No.255 of 2022 customs prevailed in their community in the presence both side family members and elders. Immediate to the marriage, the nuptials are conducted at the house of plaintif’s parents and she lived happily with the defendant for a period of 5 years and thereafter the defendant started harass the plaintif for want of additional dowry. The evidence of PW.1 further goes to show that even though the parents of PW.1 went to defendant’s parents house and tried to convince the defendant on number of times and requested him to allow the plaintif to lead happy marital life, but the defendant refused the same and not allowed PW.1 into their house. In this regard, several panchayaths held before elders, but the defendant put the advises of elders in deaf ear. The defendant openly stated to PW.1 that he intend to get second marriage with another lady and further threatened the PW.1 with dire consequences. Having vexed up with the attitude of defendant and having no other go, the PW.1 decided to take divorce with the defendant on the ground of harassment without any reason.

9.Since the evidence of PW.1 is remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant, this Court do not find any reason to disbelieve the same. Even after receipt of summons issued by this Court, the defendant failed to appear before this Court to disprove the contentions of the plaintif, this

Court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendant. Thus, the plaintif is entitled for the declaration of dissolution of marriage between her and defendant. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

10.In the result, the suit is Decreed without costs in favour of the plaintif by declaring that the marriage between the plaintif and defendant which was solemnized on 29.06.2003 is dissolved.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Sri V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Gooty

JCJ, Gooty 5 of 5 OS No.255 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT :

PW.1: Mulla Meharoon. -Exparte-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original Wedding card of the plaintif and defendant, dt. 29.06.2003.

FOR DEFENDANT :

- Nil -

Sd/- Sri V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Gooty

OS/274/2022

C. Abdul Basith vs V.Yusuf

20 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GOOTY.

Present: Sri V. VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Gooty. Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.274 of 2022

C. Abdul Basith, S/o C.Masthan Sab, aged about 72 years, Muslim, Business, Resident of Gooty town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. ...Plaintif - Vs -

V.Yusuf, S/o Mathalla, aged years, Christian, Teacher, R/o Tadipatri town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

..Defendant

This suit came up on 13-04-2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Jayarami Reddy, learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri R.Suryanarayana, learned Advocate for defendant and the defendant remained set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing the learned counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant authorizing the plaintiff to recover the suit amount from the defendant and suit costs together with future interest from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and such other relief or reliefs that this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

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

That the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees

Three lakhs fifty thousand only) in cash from the plaintiff on 25.08.2019 for his family necessities and became indebted to the plaintiff and evidencing the said liability, the defendant executed suit promissory note for

Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand only) in favour of the

JCJ, Gooty, 2 of 5 O.S. No.274 of 2022

plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. In spite of repeated demands of the plaintiff for the repayment of the promissory note amount mentioned above, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount due covered under the suit promissory note and therefore, he issued legal notice on 07.07.2022 demanding him to repay the amount due to him. The defendant is not an agriculturist and so, he is not entitled for the benefits of

Madras Act, IV of 1938 and Agricultural Indebtedness Relief Act. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount with contracted rate of interest and for subsequent interest and costs.

3.The defendant appeared through his counsel, but failed to file the written statement within the statutory period and he remained exparte to the suit proceedings on 19.01.2023. Hence, posted to plaintiff’s evidence.

4.The plaintiff in support of his contention got examined himself as

PW1. He also got exhibited the original suit promissory note dated 25.08.2019 executed by the defendant for Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand only), the office copy of legal notice, dated 07.07.2022 and postal receipt, dated 07.07.2022 as Exs.A1 to A3 respectively.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff. Perused the material available on record.

6.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery

of entire suit amount from defendant as prayed for ?

7. POINT:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- on 25.08.2019 for his family necessities and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum as and when demanded by the plaintiff and

JCJ, Gooty, 3 of 5 O.S. No.274 of 2022

therefore, he is liable to pay Rs.5,99,666/- (Rupees Five lakhs ninety nine thousand six hundred and sixty six only) under suit promissory note dated 25.08.2019 with subsequent interest. To substantiate the same, he got examined himself as PW.1 and filed proof affidavit which is accepted on oath as his chief-examination. The said chief-examination is nothing but just replica of his pleadings. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with the contents of

Ex.A1– Suit promissory note, goes to show that on 25.08.2019 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand only) in cash from the plaintiff (PW.1) for his family necessities and on the same day he executed suit promissory note i.e., Ex.A1 for Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand only) in favour of the plaintiff (PW.1), agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, the plaintiff has made demand for repayment of the amount due under the said promissory note, but the defendant did not pay the same. It further goes to show that the plaintiff issued Ex.A2- legal notice on 07.07.2022 demanding the defendant to pay the amount due under the said promissory note, but he did not pay the same. The Ex.A3- postal receipt goes to show that the plaintiff posted Ex.A2 notice to the defendant on 07.07.2022 to his correct address. In spite of that the defendant did not choose to repay the debt amount. The contents of Ex.A2-Office copy of the legal notice shows the bonafides of the plaintiff in making demand for recovery of amount due by the defendant even prior to the filing of the suit.

8.Since the evidence of PW.1 as well as the contents of Ex.A1 to

Ex.A3 remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant, this Court do not find any reason to disbelieve the same. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff with his evidence is able to establish that Ex.A1 i.e. Suit

JCJ, Gooty, 4 of 5 O.S. No.274 of 2022

promissory note is true, valid and binding upon the defendant. Apparently, the suit is filed within the period of limitation (three years). The defendant appeared through his counsel, but failed to file the written statement within the stipulated period to rebutt the version of the plaintiff and remained exparte. Hence, it seems that the defendant has admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Hence, this Court holds that sthe plaintiff is able to prove the suit claim and so, he is entitled to recover the suit amount. Accordingly, the

Point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of

Rs.5,99,666/- (Rupees Five lakhs ninety nine thousand six hundred and sixty six only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 18.08.2019 till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand only) under suit promissory note.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Sri V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Gooty.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1: C.Abdul Basith. - Exparte -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original Suit Promissory note, dated 25.08.2019 executed by the defendant for Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand only) in favour of the plaintiff.

JCJ, Gooty, 5 of 5 O.S. No.274 of 2022

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice, dated 07.07.2022. Ex.A3: Postal Receipt, dated 07.07.2022. DEFENDANT :

- Nil-

Sd/- Sri V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Gooty.

OS/206/2021

M.Anjinamma vs S.Afroze

20 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GOOTY

PRESENT: SRI. V. VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Gooty

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.206 of 2021

M. Anjinamma, W/o Late Balaiah, Hindu, Aged about 67 years, R/o Teacher’s colony, Pamidi town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. ...Plaintif - Vs -

S.Afroze, W/o S.Saleem, Muslim, Aged about 41 years, Tailoring work and Business, R/o Opposite Mazid, BC colony, Nagireddy Colony, Pamidi town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

..Defendant

This suit came up on 13-04-2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Manohar Babu and Sri P.Obulesu, learned Advocates for the Plaintiff and of Sri M.Sreenivasulu and Sri G.Sathish Kumar, learned Advocates for defendant and the defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing the learned counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to enable the plaintiff to recover the suit amount of Rs.1,72,000/- with future interest on the principal amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- till the date of realization and to award the costs of the suit and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Court deems fit and just in the circumstances of the case.

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

That the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

One lakh only) in cash from the plaintiff on 03.07.2018 for her personal and family necessities and she became indebted to the plaintiff and she

JCJ, Gooty, 2 of 4 O.S. No.206 of 2021

executed suit promissory note for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand. Several demands have been made on the defendant for repayment of amount due under promissory note mentioned above, but the defendant did not choose to repay the amount covered under promissory note. The defendant is not an agriculturist and so, she is not entitled for the benefits of Act IV of 1938 and Agricultural Indebtedness Relief Act. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount with subsequent interest and costs.

3.The defendant appeared through her counsel, but failed to file the written statement within the statutory period and she remained exparte to the suit proceedings on 05.07.2022. Hence, posted to plaintiff’s evidence.

4.The plaintiff in support of her contention got examined herself as

PW1. She also got exhibited the original suit promissory note dated 03.07.2018 executed by the defendant for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) as Ex.A1.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff. Perused the material available on record.

6.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery

of entire suit amount from defendant as prayed for ?

7. POINT:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 03.07.2018 for her family necessities and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum as and when demanded by the plaintiff and therefore, she is liable to pay Rs.1,72,000/- (Rupees One lakh seventy two

JCJ, Gooty, 3 of 4 O.S. No.206 of 2021

thousand only) under suit promissory note dated 03.07.2018 with subsequent interest. To substantiate the same, she got examined herself as PW.1 and filed proof affidavit which is accepted on oath as her chief-examination. The said chief-examination is nothing but just replica of her pleadings. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1-promissory note, goes to show that on 03.07.2018 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) in cash from the plaintiff (PW.1) for her family necessities and on the same day she executed a promissory note i.e.,

Ex.A1 for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) in favour of the plaintiff (PW.1), agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand and in spite of her repeated demands, the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount.

8.Since the evidence of PW.1 as well as the contents of Ex.A1 promissory note, remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant, this Court do not find any reason to disbelieve the same. Therefore, this

Court holds that the plaintiff with her evidence is able to establish that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is true, valid and binding upon the defendant.

Apparently, the suit is filed within the period of limitation (three years). The defendant appeared through her counsel, but failed to file the written statement within the stipulated period before the Court to rebutt the version of the plaintiff. Hence, it seems that the defendant has admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Hence, this Court holds that the plaintiff is able to prove the suit claim and so, she is entitled to recover the suit amount. Accordingly, the

Point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of

Rs.1,72,000/- (Rupees One lakh seventy two thousand only) to the plaintiff

JCJ, Gooty, 4 of 4 O.S. No.206 of 2021

with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 05.07.2021 till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) under suit promissory note.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Sri V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Gooty

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1: M.Anjinamma. - Exparte -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original suit promissory note, dated 03.07.2018 executed by the defendant for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) in favour of the plaintiff.

DEFENDANT :

- Nil -

Sd/- Sri V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Gooty

OS/421/2022

D.Ramachandra vs G.Obulesu

20 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GOOTY.

Present: Sri V. VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Gooty Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.421 of 2022

D.Ramachandra, S/o Devara Chitambari, Hindu, Aged about 42 years, Tailor, Resident of D.No.9/232, Uppara Street, Gooty town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. ...Plaintif - Vs -

G.Obulesu, S/o Gaddala Lakshmanna, Hindu, Aged about 35 years, Railway Gang Man, S.C.Railways, Gooty R.S., Resident of Latchanipalli village, Gooty mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

..Defendant

This suit came up on 13-04-2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Sreenivasulu, learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing the learned counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

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

That the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand only) in cash from the plaintiff on 07.06.2021 for his family necessities and became indebted in that sum to the plaintiff. Evidencing the said liability, the defendant executed suit promissory note for Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One lakh eighty thousand only) in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff

JCJ, Gooty, 2 of 4 O.S. No.421 of 2022

or to his order on demand. In spite of repeated demands of the plaintiff for the repayment of the promissory note amount mentioned above, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount covered under promissory note. The defendant is not an agriculturist and so, he is not entitled to the benefits of Madras Act, IV of 1938 and Agricultural Indebtedness Relief Act. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount with subsequent interest and costs.

3.Despite service of summons on defendant, the defendant did not appear before the Court and remained exparte to the suit proceedings on 09.02.2023. Hence, posted to plaintiff’s evidence.

4.The plaintiff in support of his contention got examined himself as

PW1. He also got exhibited the original suit promissory note dated 07.06.2021 executed by the defendant for Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One lakh eighty thousand only) as Ex.A1.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff. Perused the material available on record.

6.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery

of entire suit amount from defendant as prayed for ?

7. POINT:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- on 07.06.2021 for his family necessities and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum as and when demanded by the plaintiff and therefore, he is liable to pay Rs.2,42,160/- (Rupees Two lakhs forty two thousand one hundred and sixty only) under suit promissory note dated 07.06.2021 with subsequent interest. To substantiate the same, he got examined himself as PW.1 and filed proof affidavit which is accepted on oath as his chief-examination. The said chief-examination is nothing but just replica of

JCJ, Gooty, 3 of 4 O.S. No.421 of 2022

his pleadings. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1

Promissory note, goes to show that on 07.06.2021 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One lakh eighty thousand only) in cash from the plaintiff (PW.1) for his family necessities and he executed promissory note i.e., Ex.A1 for Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One lakh eighty thousand only) in favour of the plaintiff (PW.1) agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and in spite of his repeated demands, the defendant did not choose to repay the suit promissory note amount.

8.Since the evidence of PW.1 as well as the contents of Ex.A1

Promissory note, remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant, this

Court do not find any reason to disbelieve the same. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff with his evidence is able to establish that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is true, valid and binding upon the defendant. Apparently, the suit is filed within the period of limitation (three years). Despite of receiving summons, the defendant did not appear before the Court to rebutt the version of the plaintiff.

Hence, it seems that the defendant has admitted the claim of the plaintiff.

Hence, this Court holds that the plaintiff is able to prove the suit claim and so, he is entitled to recover the suit amount. Accordingly, the Point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of

Rs.2,42,160/- (Rupees Two lakhs forty two thousand one hundred and sixty only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 16.11.2022 till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One lakh eighty thousand only) under suit promissory note.

JCJ, Gooty, 4 of 4 O.S. No.421 of 2022

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Sri V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Gooty.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1: D.Ramachandra. - Exparte-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original suit promissory note, dated 07.06.2021 executed by the defendant for Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One lakh eighty thousand only) in favour of the plaintiff.

DEFENDANT :

- Nil -

Sd/- Sri V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Gooty.

OS/174/2021

A.Marenna vs Kallamadi Chandrasekhar Babu @ K.Chandrasekhar Babu

20 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GOOTY.

Present: Sri V. VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Gooty Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.174 of 2021

A.Marenna, S/o A.Jammanna, aged about 46 years, Hindu, Business, Resident of D.No.7/1422-d, Jangala colony, Gooty town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. ...Plaintif - Vs -

Kallamadi Chandrasekhar Babu @ K.Chandrasekhar Babu, S/o Kallamadi Chennakesavulu @ K.Chennakesavulu, Aged about 49 years, Hindu, Business, Resident of Nagasamudram village, Guntakal Mandal,

Ananthapuramu District. ..Defendant

This suit came up on 13-04-2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Dhanunjaya, learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing the learned counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

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

That the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) in cash from the plaintiff on 06.06.2018 for his family and business necessities and became indebted in that sum to the plaintiff. Evidencing the said liability, the defendant executed suit promissory note for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order

JCJ, Gooty, 2 of 4 O.S. No.174 of 2021

on demand. In spite of repeated demands of the plaintiff for the repayment of the promissory note amount mentioned above, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount covered under promissory note. The defendant is not an agriculturist and so, he is not entitled to the benefits of Madras Act, IV of 1938 and Agricultural Indebtedness Relief Act. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount with subsequent interest and costs.

3.Despite service of summons on defendant, the defendant did not appear before the Court and remained exparte to the suit proceedings on 23.02.2023. Hence, posted to plaintiff’s evidence.

4.The plaintiff in support of his contentions got examined himself as

PW1. He also got exhibited the original suit promissory note dated 06.06.2018 executed by the defendant for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) as Ex.A1.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff. Perused the material available on record.

6.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery

of entire suit amount from defendant as prayed for ?

7. POINT:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 06.06.2018 for his family and business necessities and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum as and when demanded by the plaintiff and therefore, he is liable to pay Rs.6,88,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs eighty eight thousand only) under suit promissory note dated 06.06.2018 with subsequent interest. To substantiate the same, he got examined himself as

PW.1 and filed proof affidavit which is accepted on oath as his chief- examination. The said chief-examination is nothing but just replica of his pleadings. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1 Promissory note, goes to show that on 06.06.2018 the defendant borrowed an amount of

JCJ, Gooty, 3 of 4 O.S. No.174 of 2021

Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) in cash from the plaintiff (PW.1) for his family necessities and he executed promissory note i.e., Ex.A1 for

Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) in favour of the plaintiff (PW.1) agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and in spite of his repeated demands, the defendant did not choose to repay the suit promissory note amount.

8.Since the evidence of PW.1 as well as the contents of Ex.A1

Promissory note, remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant, this

Court de not find any reason to disbelieve the same. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff with his evidence is able to establish that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is true, valid and binding upon the defendant. Apparently, the suit is filed within the period of limitation (three years). Despite of receiving summons, the defendant did not appear before the Court to rebutt the version of the plaintiff.

Hence, it seems that the defendant has admitted the claim of the plaintiff.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of

Rs.6,88,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs eighty eight thousand only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 09.06.2021 till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees

Four lakhs only) under suit promissory note.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Sri V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Gooty.

JCJ, Gooty, 4 of 4 O.S. No.174 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1: Ashwa Marenna @ Ashwa Pedda Marenna. - Exparte-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original suit promissory note, dated 06.06.2018 executed by the defendant for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) in favour of the plaintiff.

DEFENDANT :

- Nil -

Sd/- Sri V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Gooty.

Order Record 276 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/174/2021	A.Marenna vs Kallamadi Chandrasekhar Babu @ K.Chandrasekhar Babu	20 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/206/2021	M.Anjinamma vs S.Afroze	20 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/255/2022	M.Meharoon vs M.Noor Bahsa	20 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/274/2022	C. Abdul Basith vs V.Yusuf	20 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/421/2022	D.Ramachandra vs G.Obulesu	20 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/430/2022	B. Keerthimanthudu vs B.Karur Acchayya	20 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/80/2018	Muktha Sanjappa vs Akumalla Seenu Alias Manukinda Seenu	20 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/563/2022	The SHO Pamidi Police Station vs B.Narasimhulu Naik	20 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
PRC/23/2022	The SHO Pamidi Police Station vs S.Hanumanthu Reddy	20 Apr 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/60/2021	P.Lakshmikanth Reddy vs P.Hanumantha Reddy	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/130/2022	T.Babaiah vs K.Manasa	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/140/2020	Akkili Nagi Reddy vs K.Ramaiah	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/284/2022	D.Mallikarjuna Reddy vs M.Thimmareddy	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/288/2021	M.Mallikarjuna vs M.Kondaiah	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/296/2022	K. Vidyasagar vs G.Sunkalamma	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/325/2022	C.Archana vs G.Anjaneyulu	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/341/2022	Andhar Pragathi Grameena Bank vs Ramavath Tirupal naik	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/384/2022	V.Ramesh vs S.Eswaramma	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/385/2022	G.Sreekanth reddy vs K.Subramanyam	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/404/2022	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank. vs P.Obulesu	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/406/2022	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank. vs M.Sreeramulu@T. Sreeramulu	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/137/2019	The Inspector of Police, Pamidi Police Station. vs R.Ravindra	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/557/2019	The Inspector of Police, Pamidi Police Station. vs Paiyappagari Sudhakar	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
PRC/20/2022	The SHO Gooty Police Station vs T. Nadipi Balaiah	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/109/2018	P.Vijayakanth vs Marne Murali	10 Apr 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/70/2022	K.Dhanunjaya vs C.Ramakrishna Reddy	06 Apr 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/100/2021	Konduru Sugunamma vs P.Krishna REddy	06 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/112/2021	J.Akkamma vs P.Obulesu	06 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/164/2022	Sirisala Murali vs Gooty Rasool	06 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/174/2022	Chakali Gopal vs Chakali Vannuru Swamy	06 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/181/2020	Maheswaramma vs C.Suresh Raju	06 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/185/2002	Penugonda baba Fakruddin vs Mrs. Mohsina Sulthana	06 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/241/2022	Y. Venugopal vs M.Mohan Babu	06 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/270/2022	K.Suryanarayana vs Devara Ramanaiah	06 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/320/2022	Dasar Suresh vs G.Obulesu	06 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/352/2021	Radhika Vinod Kumar Vaddipuri vs Kakarla Suryanarayana	06 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/69/2022	Enforcement Sub Inspector of Police,SEB Station, Gooty. vs Kampa Ashok	06 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/860/2022	The SHO SEB Gooty Police Stationa vs R.Nagaraju Naik	06 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/927/2022	The SHO Peddavadurugu Police Station vs Y. Obulareddy	06 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
PRC/15/2022	STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH,Sub Inspector of Police , Gooty P.S vs J.Janardhannaiah	06 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/2/2021	Y.Mahaboob Basha vs D.Sreenivasa Murthy	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/22/2022	B.Venkata Ramana vs D.Babu	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/41/2022	K. Babu vs M.Yasudas	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/31/2020	P.Rajendra vs Boya Karekkagari Anjaneyulu	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/120/2022	Kottam Nageswara vs Kummara Anantha Narayana	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/125/2021	Sane Nageswara Rao vs Mekala Eswaraiah	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/130/2021	Makaam Chinna Ismail vs P.Obi Reddy	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/162/2018	P.Subhash Chandra vs P.Thimmappa	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/195/2020	Rama Murthy vs Y.Ampaiah	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/215/2020	H.Sunil Kumar vs S.Shaikshavali	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/224/2018	P.Narayanamma vs G.Nagarjuna	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/344/2021	Dandu Krishna Bhagavan vs B.Venkatesh	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/374/2022	A.Hajee vali vs M.Mohan babu	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/386/2022	M.Basava Raju vs B.Sreenivasa Murthy	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/60/2022	The Proh-Excise Sub Inspector, Proh- Excise station, Gooty. vs Chittipothula Lakshmi Devi	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/397/2022	The SHO SEB Gooty Police Station vs C.Chinna Muthyalu	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/413/2022	The SHO Peddavaduguru Police Station vs Sake Chinna Ramudu	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/534/2022	The SHO Peddavaduguru Police Station vs Yadiki Peddanarayana	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/923/2022	The SHO SEB Gooty Police Station vs V.Govinda Naik	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1006/2022	The SHO SEB Gooty Police Station vs M.Adinarayana	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
DVC/12/2022	K.Mounika vs V.Shashi Kumar Achari	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
PRC/2/2021	The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Tadipatri Sub Division. vs Boya Kottam Subbarayudu	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
PRC/12/2022	The SHO Pamidi Police Station vs B.Sreenivasulu (died)	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
MC/7/2021	D.Vasanthi vs D.Venugopal	18 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/154/2022	D.Narayana Reddy vs V.Lakshmi Reddy	17 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/24/2022	P.Sreenivasulu vs P.Nagendra	16 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/207/2022	M.Venkata Ramudu vs M.K. Rahiman	16 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/264/2021	K.Kodandarami Reddy vs Kongala Geeraiah	16 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/301/2022	M.Anand vs C.Sunkappa	16 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/324/2022	C.Sreedhar vs G.Anjaneyulu	16 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/357/2022	C.Chakala Sreenivasulu vs M.Ramachandra Reddy	16 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/382/2022	B.lakshmanna vs T.Nagendra	16 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/341/2020	The Sub Inspector of Police, Gooty Police Station. vs Banavathi Bhaskar Naik	16 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/390/2022	The SHO S.E.B Gooty Police Station vs R.Devamma	16 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/535/2022	The SHO SEB Gotoy Police Station vs M.Obulesu	16 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/739/2022	The SHO Gooty SEB police Station vs N.Sunkamma	16 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/843/2022	The SHO SEB Gooty police Station vs Nallabothula Sudhakar	16 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/865/2022	The SHO SEB Gooty Police Station vs V.Seenu Naik	16 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
PRC/17/2022	The SHO Gooty Police Station vs A.Suresh	16 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/153/2022	B.A.C.Muthyala Reddy vs V.Lakhmi Reddy	13 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/247/2016	P.Narayana Reddy vs Raghavareddygari Siva Reddy	13 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/50/2023	The SHO Gooty Police Station vs E.Lakshmaiah	10 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/24/2020	Chakala Sreenivasulu vs Chakala Chinna Chowdappa	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/43/2022	C.Venkata Ramana vs K.Lokesh	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/75/2022	Mallela Lakshminarayana vs Sirisaala Markendeyulu	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/113/2021	Pasala Rama Devi vs Pasala Mallikarjuna	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/225/2022	M.Swarnalatha vs T.subramanyam	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/258/2018	t.Manohara vs B.Sanjeevulu	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/266/2019	R.Nageswara Reddy vs T.Madan Mohan Reddy	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/429/2022	B.Seeniasulu vs K.Ranga Swamy	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/70/2015	SHO. Pamidi PS vs Dudekula Kantikoti Alleepeera age 45 years	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/503/2021	Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB Station, Gooty vs Ramavath Gowri	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/507/2022	The SHO SEB Gooty Police Station vs Shaok	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/944/2022	The SHO Gooty Police Station vs S.Naresh Kumar	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/994/2022	The SHO Gooty Police Station vs S.Naresh	09 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/133/2019	C.Archana vs Y.Srihari	02 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/7/2021	V.Govinda Rajulu vs R.Sreenivasulu	02 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/26/2019	N.Mahammed Rafi vs K.Jayamuneendra	02 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/32/2021	Pulikanti Harinatha Reddy vs Putluru Hanumantha Reddy	02 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/37/2021	Mangala Prameela @ Mangala Prameelamma vs Mangala Narayana Swamy	02 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 276 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2023		40
Mar 2023		73
Feb 2023		147
Jan 2023		13
Dec 2022		4

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has VijayaKumar Reddy handled?

VijayaKumar Reddy has handled 277 court orders since 2022 at VI Addl. District Judge (FTC) Anantapur at Gooty, Gooty (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 62 orders per month.

What types of cases does VijayaKumar Reddy hear?

Based on available records, VijayaKumar Reddy primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at VI Addl. District Judge (FTC) Anantapur at Gooty, Gooty (Taluka).

Where is VijayaKumar Reddy currently posted?

VijayaKumar Reddy is posted as Junior Civil Judge at VI Addl. District Judge (FTC) Anantapur at Gooty, Gooty (Taluka), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by VijayaKumar Reddy available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by VijayaKumar Reddy are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does VijayaKumar Reddy dispose cases?

VijayaKumar Reddy disposes approximately 62 cases per month, based on 277 orders handled over their tenure at VI Addl. District Judge (FTC) Anantapur at Gooty, Gooty (Taluka).

Since when is VijayaKumar Reddy serving?

VijayaKumar Reddy has been serving at VI Addl. District Judge (FTC) Anantapur at Gooty, Gooty (Taluka) since 2022.

Case Types

CC 51%

OS 38%

EP 4%

PRC 4%

MC 2%

DVC 1%

Posting History

Dec 2022 — Apr 2023

Junior Civil Judge · 277 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri M. Kasi Viswanadha Achary

Senior Civil Judge

1,580 orders

B. Swetha

Junior Civil Judge

476 orders

Madugula Shankar Rao

VI Addl. District Judge

0 orders

← View all judges at VI Addl. District Judge (FTC) Anantapur at Gooty, Gooty (Taluka)