Hanumantharayappa vs Nagaraju — 47/2023

Case under Under Order Vii Rule 1 of Cpc Section 26. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 01st July 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 01-Jul-2026 this date has passed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KABR610002492023

Filing Number

47/2023

Filing Date

24-Jan-2023

Registration No

47/2023

Registration Date

24-Jan-2023

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA

Judge

888-Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Last updated 29-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Order Vii Rule 1 of Cpc Section 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Hanumantharayappa

    Adv. Hanumanthaiah D R

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Nagaraju

  2. 2.Siddagangamma

  3. 3.Jayaramu

Case History

  1. 01-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  3. 15-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 11-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  5. 16-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  6. 24-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  7. 20-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  8. 18-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  9. 09-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  10. 22-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  11. 27-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  12. 05-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  13. 24-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  14. 27-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  15. 05-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  16. 04-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  17. 11-Sep-2023

    Issues

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  18. 29-Aug-2023

    Issues

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  19. 13-Jul-2023

    Orders

  20. 13-Jul-2023

    Orders

    Case Summary: O.S. No. 47/2023 Outcome: Temporary injunction application dismissed. Key Facts: Plaintiff Hanumantharayappa sought to restrain defendants (Nagaraju, Siddagangamma, and Jayaramu) from interfering with two properties inherited through a 1972 partition deed. The court found that boundaries described in the plaintiff's claim did not match those in the partition deed itself, leaving property identification in dispute. Despite plaintiff's tax records and possession evidence, the court concluded he failed to establish a prima facie case necessary for interim relief and dismissed the application with no cost order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  21. 13-Jul-2023

    Issues

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  22. 27-Jun-2023

    Orders

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  23. 06-Jun-2023

    Orders

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  24. 30-May-2023

    Hearing

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  25. 29-May-2023

    Hearing

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  26. 21-Apr-2023

    Reply

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  27. 19-Apr-2023

    Reply

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  28. 31-Mar-2023

    Reply

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  29. 23-Mar-2023

    Hearing

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  30. 13-Mar-2023

    Hearing

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  31. 01-Mar-2023

    Written Statement And Objection

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  32. 27-Jan-2023

    Emergent Notice

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  33. 25-Jan-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  34. 24-Jan-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 47/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: O.S. No. 47/2023 Outcome: Temporary injunction application dismissed. Key Facts: Plaintiff Hanumantharayappa sought to restrain defendants (Nagaraju, Siddagangamma, and Jayaramu) from interfering with two properties inherited through a 1972 partition deed. The court found that boundaries described in the plaintiff's claim did not match those in the partition deed itself, leaving property identification in dispute. Despite plaintiff's tax records and possession evidence, the court concluded he failed to establish a prima facie case necessary for interim relief and dismissed the application with no cost order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case