Sri Y. Bennayya Naidu

Additional Senior Civil Judge,Eluru

PDJ Court Complex Eluru · West Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Sri Y. Bennayya Naidu, Additional Senior Civil Judge,Eluru, is posted at PDJ Court Complex Eluru, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,361 court orders on record since 2011. 19 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, H cases.

2,361

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/26/2015

Satti Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy vs Javvaji Bala Krishna Rao

16 Mar 2020

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU

PRESENT: - Sri Y.Bennayya Naidu, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Eluru

Monday, this the 16th day of March, 2020

Original Suit No. 26/2015

Between: -

Satti Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.Dora Reddy, Hindu, Male, 34 years, Business, Door No.1-49, Jonnada Village, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District, AJCJC. – Plaintiff.

and

1. Javvaji Bala Krishnarao (died).

2. Javvaji Koteswaramma, W/o.late Bala Krishnarao, Hindu, Female, 58 years, Properties, r/o.Chintalapudi Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District.

3. Javvaji Krishna Sankar, S/o.late Bala Krishna Rao, Hindu, Male, 42 years, Properties, r/o.Chintalapudi Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District.

(Defendants 2 and 3 are added as L.Rs., of the 1st defendant, as per orders in I.A.No.2150/2018, dated 29-7-2019). –-Defendants.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 13.03.2020 and was reserved in the presence of Sri Ch.Bheemeswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Ganga Raju,Advocate for the defendants 2 and 3; and the 1st defendant died during the pendency of the suit and upon hearing and perusing the material available on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit filed by the plaintiff basing on the mortgage deed dated 09.04.2003 for recovery of amount of Rs.1,14,780/- with subsequent interest at contract rate on principal amount of Rs.30,000/- from the date of the plaint to till realization and for costs of the suit.

2. Brief facts set out in the plaint are as follows:

The deceased 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff on 9.4.2003 for his family necessity and agricultural expenses, agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% per annum and 2 executed registered mortgage deed dated 09.04.2003 in favour of plaintiff in the presence of attestors and scribe. Later, in spite of repeated demands made by the Plaintiff, deceased 1st defendant dogged the matter one way or other.

Thereafter the deceased 1st defendant died and then the plaintiff demanded the defendants herein for the payment of mortgage amount, but the defendants are avoiding the payment of debt covered under mortgage deed in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff as orally. Hence, the suit.

3. Written statement filed by the defendants and denying most of the averments in plaint and contended that the deceased 1st defendant has already discharged the entire amount due by him with subsequent interest to the plaintiff and the 1st defendant has no due of any amount regard to Ex.A-1 mortgage deed by reason that 1st defendant has already discharged debt covered under mortgage deed. Further averred that after death of 1st defendant the plaintiff is claiming suit debt from the defendants herein with a view to get wrongful gain even though the 1st defendant had discharged mortgage debt during his life time. Further averred that the debt covered under mortgage deed was already discharged and so that the suit filed by plaintiff against the defendants is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. On the strength of rival contentions, the following issues were framed for trial and final determination :

Issues:

1) Whether the defendant borrowed Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff on 9-4-2003 and executed a registered mortgage deed on the even date in favour of the plaintiff?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim by way of preliminary decree as prayed for?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant personally if the sale proceeds are not sufficient to satisfy the suit claim?

4) To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of Plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, no witnesses are examined and no documents are marked.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

1) Whether the defendant borrowed Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff on 9-4-2003 and executed a registered mortgage deed on the even date in favour of the plaintiff?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim by way of preliminary decree as prayed for?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant personally if the sale proceeds are not sufficient to satisfy the suit claim?

4) To what relief?

7. The Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff came to the

Court with clean hands and the plaintiff has successfully established his case and claim against the defendants by virtue of his conventional evidence and by virtue of independent evidence and by virtue of documentary evidence and so the plaintiff is absolutely entitled for recovery of entire suit debt with subsequent interest and costs from the defendants under Ex.A.1 suit mortgage deed.

8. The Counsel for the defendants argued that the defendants came to the court with clean hands and the defendants have successfully established their case and allegations against plaintiff by virtue of their plea. Further he argued that the deceased 1st defendant has already discharged the entire amount due by him with subsequent interest to the plaintiff and the 1st defendant has no due of any amount regard to Ex.A-1 mortgage deed by reason that 1st defendant has already discharged debt covered under mortgage deed. Further argued that after death of 1st defendant the plaintiff is claiming suit debt from the defendants herein with a view to get wrongful gain even though the 1st defendant had discharged mortgage debt during his life time. Further argued that the debt covered under mortgage deed was already discharged and so that the suit filed by plaintiff against the defendants is liable to be dismissed with costs.

9. ISSUES 2 and 3

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim by way of preliminary decree as prayed for?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant personally if the sale proceeds are not sufficient to satisfy the suit claim?

a) Upon careful perusal of plea of the plaintiff and on careful scrutiny of conventional evidence of P.W.1/plaintiff and upon careful examination of recitals of Exs.A.1 to A.4 documentary evidence of the plaintiff and upon careful scrutiny of independent evidence of plaintiff i.e., evidence of P.W.2, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has successfully established his case and claim against defendants by virtue of his conventional evidence and by virtue of his material plea and by virtue of recitals of Exs.A.1 to A.4 documentary evidence of the plaintiff, same facts are clearly reflected in the conventional plea of the plaintiff and in the conventional evidence of the P.W.1/plaintiff and in the recitals of documentary evidence of the plaintiff and in the independent evidence of plaintiff.

b) Further the plaintiff has successfully established the contents of Ex.A.1 suit mortgage deed and the duly execution of Ex.A.1 suit mortgage deed by the 1st defendant in his favour i.e. in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of attestors and scribe of Ex.A.1 suit mortgage deed and also established about passing of entire consideration to the 1st defendant from him i.e., from the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 suit mortgage deed in the presence of attestors and scribe and also established the rate of interest agreed to pay by the 1st defendant to him i.e., to the plaintiff as mentioned in the contents of

Ex.A.1 suit mortgage deed, and also established about necessity of amount borrowed by the 1st defendant from him i.e., from the plaintiff in the presence of attestors and scribe as mentioned in the recitals of Ex.A.1 suit mortgage deed, the same facts are clearly reflected in the conventional evidence of

P.W.1/plaintiff and in the recitals of Ex.A.1 suit mortgage deed and also in the material plea of the plaintiff.

c) Further the plaintiff has successfully established about his 5 demands to the defendants for the payment of suit debt but the defendants have willfully and intentionally refusing and neglecting in payment of suit debt in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff as orally and on receipt of legal notice, the same facts are clearly reflected in the conventional evidence of P.W.1/plaintiff and in the material plea of the plaintiff and also in Exs.A-3 and A-4 documentary evidence of the plaintiff.

10. In view of above my analysis and in view of afore said reasons and findings and conclusions, I hold that the plaintiff has successfully established his case and claim against the defendants by virtue of his conventional evidence and documentary evidence. Therefore under these circumstances, I hold that the 1st defendant had borrowed amounts from the plaintiff as mentioned in the recitals of

Ex.A.1 suit mortgage deed in the presence of scribe and attestors of Ex.A.1 suit mortgage deed agreeing to repay the same with subsequent interest and costs but subsequently the defendants have willfully and intentionally avoiding the payment of suit debt in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff as orally and also on receipt of legal notice, then also the defendants are avoiding the payment of suit debt. Therefore, under these circumstances I hold that the plaintiff is absolutely entitled for recovery of entire suit debt with subsequent interest and costs from the estate of deceased 1st defendant if any devolved on the defendants herein under

Ex.A.1 suit mortgage deed. So accordingly, Issue No. 2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff against defendants.

11. Issue No.1:

1) Whether the defendant borrowed Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff on 9-4-2003 and executed a registered mortgage deed on the even date in favour of the plaintiff?

a) Upon careful perusal of plea of the defendants which was set up by them in their pleadings, I am of the opinion that the defendants have absolutely failed to establish their alleged allegations and their alleged 6 discharge plea which was set up by them in their pleadings on ground of non appearance of any material plea in the plea of the defendants and due to lack of any supporting and cogent and conventional and material independent evidence and documentary evidence and recorded proof on behalf of the defendants to prove their alleged allegations against plaintiff, and also due to non examination of any material independent witnesses on their behalf to prove their alleged case and allegations against the plaintiff as pleaded by them in their pleadings and also due to lack of any supporting evidence and corroborating version to the plea of the defendants as alleged by defendants in their pleadings.

12. Further the oral plea of the defendants without production of any material documentary proof and recorded proof and without adducing any material independent evidence on their behalf are not at all reliable and are not at all reasonable and relevant to prove their alleged discharge plea and their alleged allegations against plaintiff, as pleaded by them in their pleadings and also are not at all reliable and reasonable to disprove the material evidence of the plaintiff and material documentary evidence of the plaintiff and independent evidence of the plaintiff, on ground of lack of any supporting and cogent and conventional documentary proof and recorded proof on behalf of the defendants to prove their alleged allegations against plaintiff, as pleaded by them in their pleadings.

Therefore, under these circumstances, I hold that the suit mortgage deed is true and valid and binding on the defendants and also the 1st defendant had duly executed the suit mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff. Further I hold that the suit mortgage deed is fair one and genuine one and also suit mortgage deed is fully supported by consideration. Further I hold that the discharge pleaded by the defendants is absolutely not maintainable as per law. So accordingly Issue No.1 is answered against the defendants.

13. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, I come to the 7 conclusion that P.W.1/Plaintiff has successfully established his case and claim against the defendants by virtue of his evidence and documentary evidence.

Therefore, the plaintiff is absolutely entitled for recovery of entire suit debt with subsequent interest and costs from the estate of the deceased borrower if any devolved on the defendants herein under the suit mortgage deed.

14. ISSUE No.4 : To what relief ?

Hence, in the result, the suit is decreed preliminarily for a sum of

Rs.1,14,780/- (Rupees one lakh fourteen thousand seven hundred and eighty only) in favour of the plaintiff against the estate of the deceased borrower i.e., deceased 1st defendant, if any devolved on the defendants herein with costs and with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.30,000/- from the date of this suit to till the date of decree and with subsequent interest at 6% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.30,000/- from the date of decree to till the date of realization. Further the redemption period of two months is fixed for redemption for mortgage property by the defendants from the plaintiff on payment of decretal amount to the plaintiff, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to file final decree proceedings against the defendants in accordance with law.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, and corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 16 th day of March, 2020.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1 S.Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy. -None - P.W.2 Ch.S.N.Chakravarthi.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1 : Registered mortgage deed dated 9.4.2003 executed by deceased 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A.2 : Pattadar pass book stands in the name of the deceased 1st defendant.

Ex.A.3 : Office copy of legal notice dated 8-12-2014 got issued by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant. Ex.A.4 : Postal acknowledgement of 1st defendant.

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

P.S.C.J.

OS/265/2016

Kodali Lakshmayya vs Talluri Radha Rani alias Challamma

20 Aug 2018

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU:

PRESENT: - Sri Y.Bennayya Naidu, Addl. Senior Civil Judge.

Monday, this the 20th day of August, 2018

Original Suit No. 265/2016

Between: - Kodali Lakshmayya S/o Venkayya R/o D.No.2-25, Yerraguntapalli Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, W.G.Dt., –-Plaintiff.

And

1.Talluri Radha Rani @ Challamma W/o Late Sambasivareddy, Yarraguntapalli village, Chintalapudi Mandal, W.G.Dt.,

2.Talluri Ajay Krishna Reddy, S/o Late Sambasivareddy, Yarraguntapalli Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, W.G.Dt., –-Defendants.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 13.08.2018 and was reserved in the presence of Sri N.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri M.P.V.N.V.SastryAdvocate for the defendants, and upon hearing and perusing the material available on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit filed by the plaintiff basing on the pronote dated 18.09.2013 for recovery of amount of Rs.12,20,000/- with subsequent interest at contract rate on principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the date of the plaint to till realization and for costs of the suit.

2. Brief facts set out in the plaint are as follows:

The husband of the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 18.09.2013to purchase barren licenceand his business purpose agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% per annum either to his demand or at his order and executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff in the presence of attesters and scribe.

Later, in spite of repeated demands made by the Plaintiff, the husband of the 1st defendant dogged the matter one where other. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued legal notice and the same is acknowledged but the defendants failed to pay the suit amount and kept silent. Hence, the suit.

3.Written statement filed by the defendants and denying most of the averments in plaint and contended that the husband of the 1st defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any time and payment of amount by the plaintiff to the husband of the 1st defendant under suit pronote is not correct. Further contended that the plaintiff got fabricated and created and forged the contents of Ex.A1 suit pronote in the name of the husband of the 1st defendant. Further contended that the husband of the 1st defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and the husband of the 1st defendant did not execute suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff at any time and no consideration passed to the husband of the 1st defendant from the plaintiff and suit pronote is fabricated one and forged one and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount to the husband of the 1st defendant and so the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. On the strength of rival contentions, the following issues were framed for trial and final determination :

Issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for or not?

2) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendants or not?

3) Whether the suit pronote is created one and fabricated one and forged one or not?

4) Whether the suit pronote is supported by consideration or not?

5) To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of Plaintiff P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 aremarked. On behalf of the defendants,

DW.1and 2 are examined and no documents are marked.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for or not?

2) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendants or not?

3) Whether the suit pronote is created one and fabricated one and forged one or not?

4) Whether the suit pronote is supported by consideration or not?

5) To what relief?

7.The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff came to the Court with clean hands and the plaintiff has successfully established his case and claim against the defendants by virtue of his conventional evidence and by virtue of independent evidence and by virtue of documentary evidence and so the plaintiff is absolutely entitled for recovery of entire suit debt with subsequent and costs from the defendants under Ex.A.1 suit pronote.

8.The counsel for the defendants argued that the defendants came to the court with clean hands and the defendants have successfully established their case and allegations against plaintiff by virtue of their plea. Further he argued that the husband of the 1st defendant did not execute suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of alleged attesters and scribe and the husband of the 1st defendant did not receive any consideration from the plaintiff as alleged and no transaction was occurred in between the plaintiff and husband of the 1st defendant as alleged in the presence of alleged attesters and scribe and no consideration passed to the husband of the 1st defendant from the plaintiff under alleged transaction and the plaintiff has created and fabricated and forged the suit pronote on collusion with scribe and attesters of suit pronote and the plaintiff has filed this suit with a view to get wrongful gain from the defendants and so the suit is liable for dismissed with costs.

9. ISSUE No.1

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for or not?

(a) Upon careful perusal of plea of the plaintiff and on careful scrutiny of conventional evidence of P.W.1/plaintiff and supporting evidence of

P.Ws.2 and 3 who are attestors and scribe of Ex.A.1 suit pronote and upon careful examination of recitals of Ex.A.1 to A.4 documentary evidence of the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has successfully established his case and claim against defendants by virtue 4 of his conventional evidence and by virtue of his material plea and by virtue of supporting evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and by virtue of recitals of

Ex.A.1 to A.4 documentary evidence of the plaintiff, same facts are clearly reflected in the conventional plea of the plaintiff and in the conventional evidence of the P.W.1/plaintiff and in the supporting evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and in the recitals of documentary evidence of the plaintiff.

(b)Further the plaintiff has successfully established the contents of Ex.A.1 suit pronote and the duly execution of Ex.A.1 suit pronote by the husband of the 1st defendant in his favour i.e. in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 attestor and scribe and in the presence of another attestor of Ex.A.1 suit pronote and also established about passing of entire consideration to the husband of the 1st defendant from his i.e. from the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 suit pronote in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 who are attestors and scribe and also established the rate of interest agreed to pay by the husband of the 1st defendant to him i.e. to the plaintiff as mentioned in the contents of Ex.A.1 suit pronote, and also established about necessity of amount borrowed by the husband of the 1st defendant from him i.e. from the plaintiff in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 who are attestor and scribe as mentioned in the recitals of Ex.A.1 suit pronote, the same facts are clearly reflected in the conventional evidence of P.W.1/plaintiff and in the supporting evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 who are attestor and scribe of Ex.A.1 suit pronote and in the recitals of Ex.A.1 suit pronote and also in the material plea of the plaintiff.

(c) Further the plaintiff has successfully established about his demands to the defendants for the payment of suit debt but the defendants have willfully and intentionally refusing and neglecting in payment of suit debt in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff as orally , the same 5 facts are clearly reflected in the conventional evidence of P.W.1/plaintiff and in the material plea of the plaintiff and also in the recitals of Exs.A.2 to A.4 documentary evidence of plaintiff.

10.In view of above my analysis and in view of afore said reasons and findings and conclusions, I hold that the plaintiff has successfully established his case and claim against the defendants by virtue of his conventional evidence and by virtue of independent evidence and documentary evidence.

Therefore under these circumstances, I hold that the husband of the 1st defendant had borrowed amounts from the plaintiff as mentioned in the recitals of Ex.A.1 suit pronote in the presence of scribe and attestors of Ex.A.1 suit pronote agreeing to repay the same with subsequent interest and costs but subsequently the defendants have willfully and intentionally avoiding the payment of suit debt in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff as orally , then also the defendants are avoiding the payment of suit debt.

Therefore, under these circumstances I hold that the plaintiff is absolutely entitled for recovery of entire suit debt with subsequent interest and costs from the estate of husband of 1st defendant if any devolved on the defendants herein under Ex.A.1 suit pronote. So accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff against defendants.

11. Issues 2 to 4:

2.Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendants or not?

3.Whether the suit pronote is created one and fabricated one and forged one or not?

4.Whether the suit pronote is supported by consideration or not?

A). Upon careful perusal of plea of the defendants which was set up by them in their pleadings and upon careful scrutiny of evidence of Dws.1 & 2, I am of the opinion that the defendants have absolutely failed to establish their alleged allegations and their alleged created plea and fabricated plea and forged plea 6 which was set up by them in their pleadings on ground of non appearance of any material plea in the plea of the defendants and due to lack of any supporting and cogent and conventional and material independent evidence and documentary evidence and recorded proof on behalf of the defendants to prove their alleged allegations against plaintiff, and also due to non examination of any material independent witnesses on their behalf to prove their alleged case and allegations against the plaintiff as pleaded by them in their pleadings and also due to lack of any supporting evidence and corroborating version in evidence of Dw.2 independent witnesses to substantiate the alleged allegations of defendants and also to corroborate to the evidence of Dw.1 as alleged by defendants in their pleadings.

B).Further the oral plea of the defendants and oral evidence of Dws.1 & 2 without production of any material documentary proof and recorded proof and without adducing any material independent evidence on their behalf are not at all reliable and are not at all reasonable and relevant to prove their alleged created plea and fabricated plea and forged plea and their alleged allegations against plaintiff, as pleaded by them in their pleadings and also are not at all reliable and reasonable to disprove the material evidence of the plaintiff and material independent evidence of the plaintiff and material documentary evidence of the plaintiff on ground of lack of any supporting and cogent and conventional documentary proof and recorded proof on behalf of the defendants to prove their alleged allegations against plaintiff, as pleaded by them in their pleadings. Therefore, under these circumstances, I hold that the suit pronote is true and valid and binding on the defendants and also the husband of the 1st defendant had duly executed the suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff. Further I hold that the suit pronote is not created one and it is not fabricated one and it is not forged one and the suit pronote is fair one and genuine one and also suit pronote is fully supported by consideration. So accordingly Issue No. 2 to 4 are answered against the defendants.

12.Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, I come to the conclusion that P.W.1/Plaintiff has successfully established his case and claim against the defendants by virtue of his evidence and by virtue of independent evidence and documentary evidence. Therefore, the plaintiff is absolutely entitled for recovery of entire suit debt with subsequent interest and costs from the estate of the deceased borrower if any devolved on the defendants herein under the suit pronote.

13.ISSUE No.5 :

To what relief ?

Hence, in the result the suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.12,20,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs twenty thousand only) in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants and against estate of deceased borrower ie. husband of the 1st defendant, if any devolved on the defendants herein and with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the date of this suit to till the date of decree and with subsequent interest at 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the date of decree to till the date of realization and with costs.

Typed to my dictation and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 20 th day of August, 2018.

Sd/- Y.Bennayya Naidu

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ELURU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1Kodali LakshmayyaDW.1Talluri Radha Rani PW2V.Siva Nagendra RaoDW.2G.Santhareddy PW.3B.Siva Nageswara Rao 8

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1 : Promissory note dated 18.09.2013 executed by deceased Sambha Siva Reddy in favour of plaintiff Ex.A.2 : Office copy of legal notice dt. 14.7.2016 Ex.A.3 : Return notice from the 2nd defendant dt. 25.7.2016 Ex.A.4 : Postal receipt of 1st defendant

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

Id/- Y.B.Naidu A.S.C.J.

OS/192/2018

bollineni Pushpavathi vs Bethina Satyanarayana

16 Mar 2020

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU

PRESENT: - Sri Y.Bennayya Naidu, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Eluru

Monday, this the 16th day of March, 2020

Original Suit No.192/2018

Between: -

Bollineni Pushpavathi, W/o.Subba Rao, Hindu, Female, 66 years, Properties, r/o.Door No.23-A-28, Panugantivari Veedhi, Sree Apartment, Ramachandraraopet, Eluru, W.G.Dist., EJCJC. –-Plaintiff.

and

Bethina Satyanarayana, S/o.Surya Chandra Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Male, 52 years, Cultivation, r/o.D.No.2-13, Kavuluru Village, Nallajerla Mandal, W.G.Dist.¸TPG JCJC. –-Defendant.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 13.03.2020 and was reserved in the presence of Sri A.Pavan Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Siva Rama Krishna, Advocate for the defendant; and upon hearing and perusing the material available on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff basing on the pronotes dated 08-05-2012, 08-08-2012, 15-01-2013 for recovery of amount of Rs.11,20,815/- with subsequent interest at contract rate on principal amount of Rs.1,75,000/- +

Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.1,90,000/- from the date of the plaint to till realization and for costs of the suit.

2. Brief facts set out in the plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- + Rs.2,00,000/- +

Rs.1,90,000/- from the plaintiff on 08-05-2012, 08-08-2012, 15-01-2013 respectively for his family necessity and agricultural expenses, and agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 18% per annum either to her demand or at her order and executed demand promissory notes in favour of plaintiff in the 2 presence of attestors. Later, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant dogged the matter one way or other. Hence, the suit.

3. Written statement filed by the defendant and denying most of the averments in plaint and contended that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any time and payment of amount by the plaintiff to the defendant under suit pronotes is not correct. Further contended that the plaintiff got fabricated and created contents of suit pronotes in the name of the defendant.

Further contended that the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and the defendant did not execute suit pronotes in favour of the plaintiff at any time and no consideration passed to the defendant from the plaintiff and suit pronotes are fabricated one and forged one and so the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. On the strength of rival contentions, the following issues were framed for trial and final determination :

Issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for or not?

2) Whether the suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant or not?

3) Whether the suit pronotes and part payment endorsements are created one, fabricated one and forged one or not?

4) Whether the suit pronotes are supported by consideration or not?

5) To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff P.Ws.1 to 4 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A-6 are marked. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 is examined and no documents are marked.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for or not?

2) Whether the suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant or not?

3) Whether the suit pronotes and part payment endorsements are created 3 one, fabricated one and forged one or not?

4) Whether the suit pronotes are supported by consideration or not?

5) To what relief?

7. The Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff came to the

Court with clean hands and the plaintiff has successfully established her case and claim against the defendant by virtue of her conventional evidence and by virtue of documentary evidence and so the plaintiff is absolutely entitled for recovery of entire suit debt with subsequent interest and costs from the defendant under suit pronotes.

8. The Counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant came to the Court with clean hands and the defendant has successfully established his case and allegations against plaintiff by virtue of his plea and also by virtue of his evidence. Further he argued that the defendant did not execute suit pronotes in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of alleged attestors and scribe and the defendant did not receive any consideration from the plaintiff as alleged and no transaction was occurred in between the plaintiff and defendant herein as alleged in the presence of alleged attestors and scribe and no consideration passed to the defendant from the plaintiff under alleged transaction and the plaintiff has created and fabricated and forged suit pronotes on collusion with scribe and attestors of suit pronotes and the plaintiff has filed this suit with a view to get wrongful gain from the defendant and so the suit is liable for dismissed with costs.

9. ISSUE No.1 :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for or not?

(a) Upon careful perusal of plea of the plaintiff and on careful scrutiny of conventional evidence of P.W.1/plaintiff and on careful examination of supporting evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 who are attestors of

Exs.A-1 to A-6 and on careful examination of recitals of Exs.A.1 to A.6 documentary evidence of the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has 4 successfully established her case and claim against defendant by virtue of her conventional evidence and by virtue of her material plea and by virtue of recitals of Exs.A.1 to A.6 documentary evidence of the plaintiff, same facts are clearly reflected in the conventional plea of the plaintiff and in the conventional evidence of the P.W.1/plaintiff and in supporting evidence of

P.Ws.2 to 4 who are the independent witnesses of plaintiff and in the recitals of documentary evidence of the plaintiff.

(b) Further the plaintiff has successfully established the contents of Ex.A-1, A-3, A-5 suit pronotes and Exs.A-2, A-4, A-6 part payment endorsements and the duly execution of Ex.A-1, A-3, A-5 suit pronotes and

Exs.A-2, A-4, A-6 part payment endorsements by the defendant in her favour i.e., in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of attestors and scribe of Ex.A-1,

A-3, A-5 suit pronotes and Exs.A-2, A-4, A-6 part payment endorsements and also established about passing of entire consideration to the defendant from her i.e., from the plaintiff under Ex.A.1, A.3, A.5 suit pronotes in the presence of attestors and scribe and also established the rate of interest agreed to pay by the defendant to her i.e., to the plaintiff as mentioned in the contents of

Ex.A.1, A.3, A.5 suit pronotes and also established about necessity of amount borrowed by the defendant from her i.e., from the plaintiff in the presence of attesters and scribe as mentioned in the recitals of Ex.A.1, A.3,

A.5 suit pronotes, the same facts are clearly reflected in the conventional evidence of P.W.1/plaintiff and in the recitals of Ex.A-1, A-3, A-5 suit pronotes and Exs.A-2, A-4, A-6 part payment endorsements and also in the material plea of the plaintiff and also in the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 independent witnesses of plaintiff.

(c) Further the plaintiff has successfully established about her demands to the defendant for the payment of suit debt but the defendant has willfully and intentionally refusing and neglecting in payment of suit debt in 5 spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff as orally, the same facts are clearly reflected in the conventional evidence of P.W.1/plaintiff.

10. In view of above my analysis and in view of aforesaid reasons and findings and conclusions, I hold that the plaintiff has successfully established her case and claim against the defendant by virtue of her conventional evidence and by virtue of documentary evidence. Therefore under these circumstances, I hold that the defendant had borrowed amount from the plaintiff as mentioned in the recitals of Exs.A.1, A.3, A.5 suit pronotes in the presence of scribe and attestors of

Exs.A.1, A.3, A.5 suit pronotes agreeing to repay the same with subsequent interest and costs but subsequently the defendant has been willfully and intentionally avoiding the payment of suit debt in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff as orally, then also the defendant is avoiding the payment of suit debt. Therefore, under these circumstances, I hold that the plaintiff is absolutely entitled for recovery of entire suit debt with subsequent interest and costs from the defendant under Exs.A.1, A.3, A.5 suit pronotes. So accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

11. ISSUE Nos.2 to 4:

2) Whether the suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant or not?

3) Whether the suit pronotes and part payment endorsements are created one, fabricated one and forged one or not?

4) Whether the suit pronotes are supported by consideration or not?

(a) Upon careful perusal of plea of the defendant which was set up by him in his pleadings and in his evidence, I am of the opinion that the defendant has absolutely failed to establish his alleged allegations and his alleged created plea, fabricated plea which were set up by him in his pleadings and in his evidence on ground of non appearance of any material plea in the plea of the defendant and due to lack of any supporting and cogent and conventional and material independent evidence and 6 documentary evidence and recorded proof on behalf of the defendant to prove his alleged allegations against plaintiff and also due to lack of supporting evidence to the plea of the defendant to prove his alleged case and allegations against the plaintiff as pleaded by him in his pleadings and in his evidence and due to material admissions made by D.W.1/defendant in his evidence.

(b) Further the oral plea of the defendant and oral evidence of the defendant without production of any material documentary proof and recorded proof and without adducing any material independent evidence on his behalf are not at all reliable and are not at all reasonable and relevant to prove his alleged created plea and fabricated plea and forgery plea against plaintiff, as pleaded by him in his pleadings and also are not at all reliable and reasonable to disprove the material evidence of the plaintiff and material independent evidence of the plaintiff and material documentary evidence of the plaintiff on ground of lack of any supporting and cogent and conventional documentary proof and recorded proof on behalf of the defendant to prove his alleged allegations against plaintiff, as pleaded by him in his pleadings.

Therefore, under these circumstances, I hold that the suit pronotes are true and valid and binding on the defendant and also the defendant has duly executed the suit pronotes in favour of the plaintiff. Further I hold that the suit pronotes are not created one and the suit pronotes are not fabricated one and they are not forged one and the suit pronotes are fair one and genuine one and also suit pronotes are fully supported by consideration. So accordingly, Issues 2 to 4 are answered against the defendant.

12. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, I come to the conclusion that P.W.1/Plaintiff has successfully established her case and claim against the defendant by virtue of her evidence and by virtue of independent evidence and documentary evidence. Therefore, the plaintiff is absolutely entitled 7 for recovery of entire suit debt with subsequent interest and costs from the defendant under suit pronotes.

13. ISSUE No.5 : To what relief ?

Hence, in the result, the suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.11,20,815/- (Rupees eleven lakhs twenty thousand eight hundred and fifteen only) in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant and with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.1,75,000/- + Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.1,90,000/- (total amount of Rs.5,65,000/-) from the date of this suit to till the date of decree and with subsequent interest at 6% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.1,75,000/- +

Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.1,90,000/- (total amount of Rs.5,65,000/-) from the date of decree to till the date of realization and with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 16 th day of March, 2019.

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W1B.Pushpavathi. DW1: B.Satyanarayana. P.W2 B.Subba Rao. P.W3 M.Bhaskara Rao. P.W4 A.Amarnath.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1 : Promissory note dt.08.05.2012 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- Ex.A.2 : Part payment endorsement for an amount of Rs.10,000/- dated 6-5-2015 executed by defendant on reverse side of Ex.A-1 promissory note. Ex.A.3 : Promissory note dt.08.08.2012 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.A.4 : Part payment endorsement for an amount of Rs.10,000/- dated 6-5-2015 executed by defendant on reverse side of Ex.A-3 promissory note.

8 Ex.A.5 : Promissory note dt.15.01.2013 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- Ex.A.6 : Part payment endorsement for an amount of Rs.10,000/- dated 6-5-2015 executed by defendant on reverse side of Ex.A-5 promissory note.

FOR DEFENDANT: Nil.

P.S.C.J. Eluru

OS/192/2018

bollineni Pushpavathi vs Bethina Satyanarayana

16 Mar 2020

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU

PRESENT: - Sri Y.Bennayya Naidu, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Eluru

Monday, this the 16th day of March, 2020

Original Suit No.192/2018

Between: -

Bollineni Pushpavathi, W/o.Subba Rao, Hindu, Female, 66 years, Properties, r/o.Door No.23-A-28, Panugantivari Veedhi, Sree Apartment, Ramachandraraopet, Eluru, W.G.Dist., EJCJC. –-Plaintiff.

and

Bethina Satyanarayana, S/o.Surya Chandra Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Male, 52 years, Cultivation, r/o.D.No.2-13, Kavuluru Village, Nallajerla Mandal, W.G.Dist.¸TPG JCJC. –-Defendant.

J U D G M E N T

Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.1,90,000/- from the date of the plaint to till realization and for costs of the suit.

2. Brief facts set out in the plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- + Rs.2,00,000/- +

4. On the strength of rival contentions, the following issues were framed for trial and final determination :

Issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for or not?

2) Whether the suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant or not?

3) Whether the suit pronotes and part payment endorsements are created one, fabricated one and forged one or not?

4) Whether the suit pronotes are supported by consideration or not?

5) To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff P.Ws.1 to 4 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A-6 are marked. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 is examined and no documents are marked.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for or not?

2) Whether the suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant or not?

3) Whether the suit pronotes and part payment endorsements are created 3 one, fabricated one and forged one or not?

4) Whether the suit pronotes are supported by consideration or not?

5) To what relief?

7. The Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff came to the

9. ISSUE No.1 :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for or not?

P.Ws.2 to 4 who are the independent witnesses of plaintiff and in the recitals of documentary evidence of the plaintiff.

Exs.A-2, A-4, A-6 part payment endorsements by the defendant in her favour i.e., in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of attestors and scribe of Ex.A-1,

11. ISSUE Nos.2 to 4:

2) Whether the suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant or not?

3) Whether the suit pronotes and part payment endorsements are created one, fabricated one and forged one or not?

4) Whether the suit pronotes are supported by consideration or not?

13. ISSUE No.5 : To what relief ?

Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.1,90,000/- (total amount of Rs.5,65,000/-) from the date of decree to till the date of realization and with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 16 th day of March, 2019.

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W1B.Pushpavathi. DW1: B.Satyanarayana. P.W2 B.Subba Rao. P.W3 M.Bhaskara Rao. P.W4 A.Amarnath.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

FOR DEFENDANT: Nil.

P.S.C.J. Eluru

OS/192/2018

bollineni Pushpavathi vs Bethina Satyanarayana

16 Mar 2020

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU

PRESENT: - Sri Y.Bennayya Naidu, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Eluru

Monday, this the 16th day of March, 2020

Original Suit No.192/2018

Between: -

Bollineni Pushpavathi, W/o.Subba Rao, Hindu, Female, 66 years, Properties, r/o.Door No.23-A-28, Panugantivari Veedhi, Sree Apartment, Ramachandraraopet, Eluru, W.G.Dist., EJCJC. –-Plaintiff.

and

Bethina Satyanarayana, S/o.Surya Chandra Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Male, 52 years, Cultivation, r/o.D.No.2-13, Kavuluru Village, Nallajerla Mandal, W.G.Dist.¸TPG JCJC. –-Defendant.

J U D G M E N T

Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.1,90,000/- from the date of the plaint to till realization and for costs of the suit.

2. Brief facts set out in the plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- + Rs.2,00,000/- +

4. On the strength of rival contentions, the following issues were framed for trial and final determination :

Issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for or not?

2) Whether the suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant or not?

3) Whether the suit pronotes and part payment endorsements are created one, fabricated one and forged one or not?

4) Whether the suit pronotes are supported by consideration or not?

5) To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff P.Ws.1 to 4 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A-6 are marked. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 is examined and no documents are marked.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for or not?

2) Whether the suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant or not?

3) Whether the suit pronotes and part payment endorsements are created 3 one, fabricated one and forged one or not?

4) Whether the suit pronotes are supported by consideration or not?

5) To what relief?

7. The Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff came to the

9. ISSUE No.1 :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for or not?

P.Ws.2 to 4 who are the independent witnesses of plaintiff and in the recitals of documentary evidence of the plaintiff.

Exs.A-2, A-4, A-6 part payment endorsements by the defendant in her favour i.e., in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of attestors and scribe of Ex.A-1,

11. ISSUE Nos.2 to 4:

2) Whether the suit pronotes are true, valid and binding on the defendant or not?

3) Whether the suit pronotes and part payment endorsements are created one, fabricated one and forged one or not?

4) Whether the suit pronotes are supported by consideration or not?

13. ISSUE No.5 : To what relief ?

Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.1,90,000/- (total amount of Rs.5,65,000/-) from the date of decree to till the date of realization and with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 16 th day of March, 2019.

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W1B.Pushpavathi. DW1: B.Satyanarayana. P.W2 B.Subba Rao. P.W3 M.Bhaskara Rao. P.W4 A.Amarnath.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

FOR DEFENDANT: Nil.

P.S.C.J. Eluru

Order Record 2,096 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/422/2010	Yarlapati Sanjeeva Rao vs Smt. Sundarala Rajeswari	20 Jun 2020	Copy of Order	—
OS/206/2014	POPURI VENKATA SUBRAHMANYAM vs JYOTHI BUILDERS, ELURU.	18 Mar 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/116/2019	Meda Rama Krishna vs Nil	18 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/120/2019	Miriyala @ Puppala Sai Venkata Ramana vindhya @ Sai Vindhya venkata Ramana Pratyusha vs Nil	18 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
OS/26/2015	Satti Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy vs Javvaji Bala Krishna Rao	16 Mar 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/192/2018	bollineni Pushpavathi vs Bethina Satyanarayana	16 Mar 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/394/2018	Sarimakala Laxami vs Kesiraju Chalapathi Rao	16 Mar 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/400/2018	Gorinka Nani Babu vs Guttula Tata Venkata Giri	16 Mar 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/6/2020	Chundru Lavanya @ Palicharla Lavanya vs Palicherla Ganesh Rao	16 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/192/2018	Chitturi Sudhakar vs Chitturi Bhagya Lakshmi	16 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/87/2018	Jaladi Dhaneswari Devi vs Maganti Lakshmi Narasamma	13 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/100156/2016	Kadali Veera Venkateswara Rao vs Gurugubelli Suryanarayana	13 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/100355/2015	Gulla Lakshmi vs Parchuri Maruthi Rao	13 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
OS/40/2019	Devarapalli Rama Mohanarao vs Sunkavalli Suresh	13 Mar 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/55/2019	Kambhampati Rama Mohana Rao vs Boppana Sitharamaiah	11 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/100066/2019	Smt.Uppuluri Indira vs Marapareddi Venkata Ramana	11 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
S.O.P/162/2019	Bhogaraju Surya Venkata Ram Srinivas vs Vsnil	11 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/19/2018	Chinta Rama Krishna Rao vs Sirimamilla Yesudasu	10 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/110/2019	Chowta Naga Venkata PRaveen Kumar vs Vsnil	06 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/194/2016	Katru Srinivasa Rao vs Kodavali Prameela Rani alias Sandhya	06 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/16/2020	Kurakula Pushpa vs Kurakula Anji	05 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/70/2019	Devalaraju Venkata Subba rao vs Vagvala Venkarta Raman	04 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/100263/2015	Neelapala Suryachandra rao vs Busanaboina Satyanarayana	04 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/100/2019	Bejjavarapu Simhachalam vs Bejjavarapu Lakshmipriya	04 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/106/2019	Mailavarapu Pushpa vs Vsnil	04 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
FDP/1263/2019	Tirumalasetty Arjuna Rao vs Thummagunta Bhagavan	04 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
OS/100/2016	Polisetti Jhansi Naga Durga Meher vs Vakkalagadda hari Satya Venkata Gopal	02 Mar 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/228/2016	Mutyam Efraem vs Palli Venkata Ratnam	02 Mar 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/12/2020	Adapa @ Raghavaraju Durgamadhuri vs Adapa Nagaraju	02 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/104/2019	Adimulam Veerababu vs Vsnil	02 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/108/2019	Valasapalli Radhika vs Vsnil	02 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
FDP/1262/2019	Neelapu Venkateswarlu vs Bangaru Bapi Raju	02 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
FDP/1442/2019	Allada Suryanarayana vs Challa Sujatha	02 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
FDP/1735/2019	Damsetti Gangadhara Rao vs Cheera Suvarna Gangaveni	02 Mar 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/15/2019	Challa Suresh vs Boddeti Satish	28 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/242/2017	Patamsetti Baskara rao vs Nalagopu Srinivasa Rao	27 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
OS/76/2019	Edpuganti Srinivasarao vs Smt.Yekula Kandulamma	27 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
SC/100170/2016	S.I of police vs Shaik Rahimuddien Ahammad	27 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/11/2019	Kodi Visweswara Rao vs Mopidevi Jhansi Kumari	26 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
OS/326/2018	Appikonda Pratap vs Randhi Durga Srinivasa Rao	26 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
OS/382/2017	Tadiparthi Durga Rao vs Addagala Lakshmi Indira	26 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/3/2019	Morla Vijaya Krishna vs Tanikonda Venkateswara Rao	25 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
FDP/1558/2019	vatsavai Venkata Satyanarayana vs Smt.Janyavula Dhana Lakshmi	25 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
OS/236/2018	Kakarala radha krishna Mohan vs Paidi seetha Mahalakshmi	24 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/14/2019	Kummari Venkateswara Rao vs Peethala Kamala Rajeswari	18 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/27/2019	Kunapureddy Murali Krishna vs Nethala Venkata Durga Prasad	18 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
OS/475/2012	Smt. Chintalapati Suryanakumari vs SriMathey John david Samuel and 7others	17 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/4/2020	Kurapati Ravikanth vs Smt.Kurapati Venkata Lakshmi	17 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/98/2019	Talluri Rambabu vs Vsnil	17 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/62/2019	Smt.Kothari Vasantha Lakshmi vs Gandikota Veeraswamy	13 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
OS/204/2018	Chundru Srinivasa Rao vs Damisetti Gangadhara Rao	13 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/10/2016	Oriental Bank of Commerce, vs Agape Enterprises	11 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/140/2017	Peddiboina Harinadh Babu vs Peddu Shankara Rao	11 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/238/2018	Uppala Bhavan Narayana vs Bethina srinicasa Rao	11 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/246/2015	Ramisetti Purnachandra Rao vs Vaddeswaram Luther Devasahayam	11 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/276/2018	Mukkelli Marthamma vs Konde Lazar	11 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/42/2018	Revuri Kalyani vs Vschinnam Indira	10 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
OS/86/2019	Tirumareddy Dharmaraju vs Dmt.Davala Rama NAga Jaya Lakshmi	10 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/96/2019	Dandamudi Srinivasu vs Vsnil	10 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
OS/224/2016	Gandikota Lakshmi vs Gandikota Rambabu	08 Feb 2020	Copy of Decree	—
H.M.O.P/86/2019	Jammi Venkateswara Rao vs Jammi @ Pasupuleti Jyothsna	07 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/94/2019	Mangarathi Nirikshana Kumar vs Vsnil	07 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/59/2019	Atyam Venkateswara Rao vs Gadamsetti Ramanjaneyulu	06 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/61/2019	Antarvedi Kannayya vs Antarvedi Nagamani	06 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/100049/2019	Pathipati Naga Vigneswara Rao vs Vakukuri Trimurthulu	06 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
OS/72/2019	Guttikonda Satyanarayana Chowdary vs Smt.Yekula Kandulamma	06 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/89/2012	GARLAPATI SUJATHA vs GOLLA SOMA SEKHAR	06 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/198/2014	SMT. KHAMRUNNISA vs MD.ARSHAD UMAR	06 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
SC/130/2018	VsKanchupatla Bhanu Teja	06 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/58/2018	Mallapu Venkateswara Rao vs Inagadapa Lakshmi Venkata Krishna Manohar	05 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/158/2014	SMT.LANKAPALLI ANNAMMA vs SMT.LANKAPALLI SUVARNA KUMARI	05 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/190/2018	Nadipalli Lakshmi vs Veeravalli Satyavathi	05 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
SC/238/2018	S.I. of Police vs Tangirala Prasad	05 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/88/2019	Pala Gangadhara rao vs Vsnil	04 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
FDP/1444/2019	Neethi Naga Venkata Kanaka Durga vs Tavva Venkata Ratna Nagendrarao	04 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
FDP/1498/2019	Kalluri Suresh Babu vs Obillaneni Durga Rao	04 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
FDP/1616/2017	Smt.Punukollu Suneetha vs Velagala Sekhar Alfred	04 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
FDP/2099/2017	Andhra Bank vs Tammineedi Panduranga Rao	04 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/19/2019	Md.Shameevulla vs Bhimireddy Venkateswararao	03 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/100056/2016	Velamati Krishna Gandhi vs Vskatta jaya Raju	03 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
OS/96/2012	KATTA RAGHUPATHI vs KURAKULA NAGAMANI	03 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/479/2012	Puppala Venkateswara Rao vs TheState rep.by its D.Collectorand Tahsildar	03 Feb 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/78/2019	Gundu Siva Rajesh vs Vsnil	03 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/82/2019	Dhanam Hari Babu vs Vsnil	03 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
H.M.O.P/144/2019	Althi Satyanarayana vs Althi Rajeswari	03 Feb 2020	Copy of Order	—
OS/362/2015	Tanneeru Muniyya vs Jammisetti Lakshmana Rao	31 Jan 2020	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/29/2018	Vennavlli narayana Swamy vs LAO Thasildar	29 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/30/2018	Chode Subba Rao vs LAO (RDO)	29 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/31/2018	Kanikanti Madhava Rao vs LAO (RDO)	29 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/32/2018	Kasukurthi Nagabhushanam vs LAO (RDO)	29 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/33/2018	Veeranki rajeswaramma vs LAO (RDO)	29 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/34/2018	Palnati Peda Mastan Rao, vs LAO (RDO)	29 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/35/2018	Kokkiripati Kopteswara Rao vs LAO(RDO)	29 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/36/2018	Palnati Peda Mastan Rao, vs LAo (RDO)	29 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/37/2018	Kanikanti Ranga Rao vs LAO (RDO)	29 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/64/2018	Kokkiripati Venkatadri died vs LAO, RDO	29 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/65/2018	Nerusu Veeranjaneuyulu died vs LAO RDO Eluru	29 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/66/2018	Nerusu Venkateswara Rao vs LAO RDO	29 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/67/2018	Dasari Ramachandra Rao vs LAO RDO Eluru	29 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—
EP/68/2018	Nerusu maddiramayya died vs LAO RDO	29 Jan 2020	Copy of Order	—

Showing 100 of 2,096 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jun 2020		1
Mar 2020		38
Feb 2020		75
Jan 2020		151
Dec 2019		31
Nov 2019		51
Oct 2019		35
Sep 2019		38
Aug 2019		58
Jul 2019		148
Jun 2019		35
May 2019		6

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri Y. Bennayya Naidu handled?

Sri Y. Bennayya Naidu has handled 2361 court orders since 2011 at PDJ Court Complex Eluru. The average disposal rate is 25 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri Y. Bennayya Naidu hear?

Based on available records, Sri Y. Bennayya Naidu primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Cases) at PDJ Court Complex Eluru.

Where is Sri Y. Bennayya Naidu currently posted?

Sri Y. Bennayya Naidu is posted as Additional Senior Civil Judge,Eluru at PDJ Court Complex Eluru, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri Y. Bennayya Naidu available online?

Yes. 19 judgments by Sri Y. Bennayya Naidu are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri Y. Bennayya Naidu dispose cases?

Sri Y. Bennayya Naidu disposes approximately 25 cases per month, based on 2361 orders handled over their tenure at PDJ Court Complex Eluru.

Since when is Sri Y. Bennayya Naidu serving?

Sri Y. Bennayya Naidu has been serving at PDJ Court Complex Eluru since 2011.

Case Types

OS 48%

EP 18%

H 16%

IP 7%

SC 5%

OP 3%

CC 2%

FDP 1%

Posting History

Feb 2019 — Feb 2019

Additional Senior Civil Judge,Eluru
Aug 2018 — Jul 2020

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru · 1,280 orders
Jul 2018 — Aug 2018

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru · 18 orders
Mar 2017 — Aug 2018

Additional Senior Civil Judge,Eluru · 1,003 orders
May 2011 — Jun 2013

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 60 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 3

Other Judges at this Court

Smt S Sree Devi

Principal District And Sessions Judge, Eluru

515 orders

Smt.U.Indira Priyadarshini

I Additional District And Session Judge Eluru

24 orders

Smt.M.Meena Devi

II Additional District And Sessions Judge Eluru

6 orders

R V V S Murali Krishna

V Additional District And Session Judge cum Specia...

452 orders

I Srinivasa Murthy

VIII Additional District And Session Judge-SCST El...

361 orders

Dr Yeedu Srinivasa Rao

Judge, Family court-cum-VII Addl. District Judge

734 orders

M. Prameela Rani

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru

10 orders

Sri P S V B Krishna Sai Teja

Additional Senior Civil Judge,Eluru

374 orders

Dr. Sk Md Abutalib Parveez

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistr...

760 orders

Rachana Bandi

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Addition...

313 orders

Smt Kolla Spandana

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for tri...

791 orders

Nokku Mary

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile...

504 orders

Smt B. Vani Sree

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional...

0 orders

← View all judges at PDJ Court Complex Eluru