Smt. Sangeeta @ Shaila W/o.Shivanand Cholaki vs Smt.Kavita W/o.Sajeevakumar Hindivali Advocate - B.N. GURAV — 120/2021
Case under U Sec 7 Rule 1 Cpc Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 06th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KABK600011622021
Filing Number
121/2021
Filing Date
25-08-2021
Registration No
120/2021
Registration Date
25-08-2021
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI
Judge
1212-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Smt. Sangeeta @ Shaila W/o.Shivanand Cholaki
Adv. M.G. KERUR
Respondent(s)
Smt.Kavita W/o.Sajeevakumar Hindivali Advocate - B.N. GURAV
Smt. Pooja W/o.Sadashiv Biradar Patil
Adv. B.N. GURAV
Kumari Poorvi D/o.Sajeevakumar
Hearing History
Judge: 1212-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE
OBJECTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 03-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 20-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 12-12-2025 | OBJECTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court decreed the plaintiff's partition suit in part. The court held that two ancestral house properties (CTS No. 8637 and 8638/C) are jointly owned by the plaintiff and defendants, with each entitled to a ½ share. However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim to a third property (Plot No. 40) and golden ornaments, finding that Plot No. 40 was the self-acquired property of the deceased Sanjeevkumar (the plaintiff's brother), purchased from his own earnings as a Class-I contractor, not from ancestral funds. The court also rejected the validity of the unregistered relinquishment deed relied upon by the defendants to establish absolute ownership. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court decreed the plaintiff's partition suit in part. The court held that two ancestral house properties (CTS No. 8637 and 8638/C) are jointly owned by the plaintiff and defendants, with each entitled to a ½ share. However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim to a third property (Plot No. 40) and golden ornaments, finding that Plot No. 40 was the self-acquired property of the deceased Sanjeevkumar (the plaintiff's brother), purchased from his own earnings as a Class-I contractor, not from ancestral funds. The court also rejected the validity of the unregistered relinquishment deed relied upon by the defendants to establish absolute ownership. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts