Manjula vs Nagamma — 224/2024

Case under Under Order 7 Rule 1 Section cpc. Status: Issue. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.

Issue Next hearing 18-Jun-2026

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KABR510003402024

Filing Number

227/2024

Filing Date

16-Mar-2024

Registration No

224/2024

Registration Date

16-Mar-2024

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ,HOSKOTE

Judge

1187-Senior Civil Judge

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Order 7 Rule 1 Section cpc

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Manjula

    Adv. B.M.Ramanna

  2. 2.Anjanamma

  3. 3.Savitha

  4. 4.Ramappa Y.R.

  5. 5.Ramanjini

  6. 6.Aswathamma

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Nagamma

  2. 2.Nagaveni

  3. 3.Nataraju

  4. 4.Anjinamma

  5. 5.Muniraju

  6. 6.Munibyregowda

  7. 7.Manjunath

  8. 8.Nanjamma

  9. 9.Naveen Kumar

  10. 10.Ravindra

  11. 11.Nagaraj P

  12. 12.N.Puttaraju

  13. 13.N.Jagadeesh

  14. 14.Muninarayanamma

  15. 15.Anjinamma

  16. 16.Kumar

  17. 17.Vinoda

  18. 18.Manjunath

  19. 19.Rajendra N

  20. 20.Gangamma

  21. 21.K.M.Kavitha

  22. 22.M.Danush

  23. 23.Munegowda

Case History

  1. 18-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 17-Jun-2026

    Issue

    Senior Civil Judge

  3. 16-Jun-2026

    Issue

    Senior Civil Judge

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Issue

    Senior Civil Judge

  5. 29-Jan-2026

    Issue

    Senior Civil Judge

  6. 24-Nov-2025

    Issue

    Senior Civil Judge

  7. 23-Sep-2025

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary: O.S. No. 224/2024 Both interim applications filed by plaintiffs Manjula, Anjanamma, and Savitha were rejected. The court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case regarding their claimed ownership of ancestral properties under a 1994 partition deed, noting discrepancies in the partition document (overwriting of property numbers) without adequate explanation. The court also found the balance of convenience favored the defendants and that denying the compromise decree (from O.S. No. 982/2023) would cause greater hardship to defendants. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  8. 23-Sep-2025

    Call on ..

    Senior Civil Judge

  9. 08-Sep-2025

    Orders

    Senior Civil Judge

  10. 01-Aug-2025

    Orders

    Senior Civil Judge

  11. 09-Jul-2025

    Orders

    Senior Civil Judge

  12. 28-Apr-2025

    Hearing

    Senior Civil Judge

  13. 26-Apr-2025

    Hearing

    Senior Civil Judge

  14. 01-Apr-2025

    Hearing

    Senior Civil Judge

  15. 25-Feb-2025

    Hearing

    Senior Civil Judge

  16. 24-Jan-2025

    Hearing

    Senior Civil Judge

  17. 04-Dec-2024

    Hearing

    Senior Civil Judge

  18. 23-Oct-2024

    Call on ..

    Senior Civil Judge

  19. 28-Aug-2024

    Call on ..

    Senior Civil Judge

  20. 13-Jun-2024

    Call on ..

    Senior Civil Judge

  21. 20-Mar-2024

    Summons

    Senior Civil Judge

  22. 19-Mar-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 16-Mar-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 224/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: O.S. No. 224/2024 Both interim applications filed by plaintiffs Manjula, Anjanamma, and Savitha were rejected. The court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case regarding their claimed ownership of ancestral properties under a 1994 partition deed, noting discrepancies in the partition document (overwriting of property numbers) without adequate explanation. The court also found the balance of convenience favored the defendants and that denying the compromise decree (from O.S. No. 982/2023) would cause greater hardship to defendants. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case