Narayanaswamy vs M. Muniyappa — 1007/2023

Case under Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 of Cpc Section 26. Disposed: Uncontested--DECREED on 28th April 2026.

Case disposed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KABR310013002023

Filing Number

1026/2023

Filing Date

23-Sep-2023

Registration No

1007/2023

Registration Date

23-Sep-2023

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI

Judge

1062-I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Decision Date

28-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DECREED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 of Cpc Section 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Narayanaswamy

    Adv. Ashwinkumar B.M.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M. Muniyappa

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 28-Apr-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: O.S. No. 1007/2023 Court Decision: The suit for partition was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs. The court declared that the 2009 sale deed executed without the plaintiffs' consent is not binding on their ancestral property share, and held that the plaintiffs are collectively entitled to one-half share in the suit property as members of an undivided Hindu joint family. Key Reasoning: The court found the property to be ancestral (inherited through Muniyappa), established that no prior partition occurred among family members, and determined that the 2009 sale deed—executed after the Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005 cutoff date—was invalid without proof of family necessity or bona fide purchase by the buyer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Judgment

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  7. 18-Feb-2026

    ExhibitsView PDF

  8. 18-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  9. 03-Feb-2026

    ExhibitsView PDF

  10. 03-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  11. 26-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  12. 14-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  13. 18-Aug-2025

    Paper Publication

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  14. 12-Aug-2025

    Steps

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  15. 18-Jun-2025

    Reissue Summons

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  16. 05-Feb-2025

    Reissue Summons

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  17. 05-Dec-2024

    Reissue Summons

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  18. 05-Nov-2024

    Reissue Summons

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  19. 02-Sep-2024

    Reissue Summons

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  20. 01-Jul-2024

    Reissue Summons

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  21. 19-Apr-2024

    Reissue Summons

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  22. 16-Feb-2024

    Reissue Summons

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  23. 19-Dec-2023

    Reissue Summons

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  24. 04-Nov-2023

    Await Suit Summons

    I Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  25. 26-Sep-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 23-Sep-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1007/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: O.S. No. 1007/2023 Court Decision: The suit for partition was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs. The court declared that the 2009 sale deed executed without the plaintiffs' consent is not binding on their ancestral property share, and held that the plaintiffs are collectively entitled to one-half share in the suit property as members of an undivided Hindu joint family. Key Reasoning: The court found the property to be ancestral (inherited through Muniyappa), established that no prior partition occurred among family members, and determined that the 2009 sale deed—executed after the Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005 cutoff date—was invalid without proof of family necessity or bona fide purchase by the buyer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case