SHAKUNTHALA vs MANJAMMA — 805/2025
Case under Under Order 7 Rule 1 Section 1. Status: Notice. Next hearing: 21st July 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KABR510010362025
Filing Number
815/2025
Filing Date
28-Aug-2025
Registration No
805/2025
Registration Date
28-Aug-2025
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ,HOSKOTE
Judge
1187-Senior Civil Judge
Last updated 18-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHAKUNTHALA
Adv. Chalapathi.
-
2.MANJULA
-
3.SRINIVAS
-
4.ANJINAMMA
-
5.GOWRAMMA
Respondent(s)
-
1.MANJAMMA
-
2.SARITHA
-
3.KARAGAMMA
-
4.LAKSHAMIDEVI
-
5.ANJINAMMA
-
6.MUNIYAMMA
-
7.KUSUMA
Case History
-
21-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
09-Apr-2026
OrdersView PDF
Case 805/2025 Summary Plaintiffs Shakunthala, Manjula, and Srinivas sought partition and separate possession of ancestral properties, with a temporary injunction to prevent defendants Manjamma and Saritha from alienating the property. The court rejected the plaintiffs' injunction application and allowed defendants' application to vacate the interim order, finding that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. The court noted defendants had already sold the disputed properties to third parties via registered sale deed (08-09-2025), rendering any injunction infructuous. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Apr-2026
Notice
Senior Civil Judge
-
07-Apr-2026
Orders
Senior Civil Judge
-
04-Apr-2026
Orders
Senior Civil Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
Orders
Senior Civil Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
Summons
Senior Civil Judge
-
15-Dec-2025
Summons
Senior Civil Judge
-
08-Oct-2025
Summons
Senior Civil Judge
-
30-Aug-2025
Summons
Senior Civil Judge
-
29-Aug-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 805/2025
Case 805/2025 Summary Plaintiffs Shakunthala, Manjula, and Srinivas sought partition and separate possession of ancestral properties, with a temporary injunction to prevent defendants Manjamma and Saritha from alienating the property. The court rejected the plaintiffs' injunction application and allowed defendants' application to vacate the interim order, finding that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. The court noted defendants had already sold the disputed properties to third parties via registered sale deed (08-09-2025), rendering any injunction infructuous. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts