GANGALAKSHMAMMA vs NARASIMHAMURTHY — 351/2021

Case under Under Order Vii Rule 1 of Cpc Section 26. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 17th July 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 17-Jul-2026

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KABR610076972021

Filing Number

352/2021

Filing Date

13-Sep-2021

Registration No

351/2021

Registration Date

13-Sep-2021

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA

Judge

888-Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Order Vii Rule 1 of Cpc Section 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GANGALAKSHMAMMA

    Adv. N R NAGENDRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NARASIMHAMURTHY

  2. 2.NATARAJU

  3. 3.SANTHOSH

  4. 4.MUNIRAJU

  5. 5.N V SIDDAPPA

  6. 6.N V VEERANNA

  7. 7.N V BHADRAIAH

  8. 8.N V SHIVANNA

  9. 9.N V SHIVARUDRAIAH

  10. 10.N V CHANDRAPPA

Case History

  1. 17-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 03-Jun-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary: O.S. No. 351/2021 Gangalakshmamma sought a temporary injunction to restrain defendants from constructing on disputed property, claiming she held a legitimate share as the daughter of the original owner. The court dismissed her application, finding she failed to establish the three mandatory requirements for injunctive relief: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. The property was sold to defendants in 1974 and subsequently converted to residential use. Parties bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Jun-2026

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 02-May-2026

    Orders

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  5. 29-Apr-2026

    Objection

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  7. 24-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  8. 03-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  9. 05-Dec-2025

    Written Statement And Objection

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  10. 05-Nov-2025

    Written Statement And Objection

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  11. 05-Aug-2025

    Objection

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  12. 10-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  13. 15-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  14. 04-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  15. 25-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  16. 05-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  17. 24-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  18. 29-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  19. 25-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  20. 03-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  21. 21-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  22. 15-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  23. 02-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  24. 11-Oct-2023

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  25. 20-Jul-2023

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  26. 21-Apr-2023

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  27. 01-Feb-2023

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  28. 05-Dec-2022

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  29. 01-Oct-2022

    Evidence

    III Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  30. 18-Jul-2022

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  31. 16-Jun-2022

    Issues

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  32. 19-Apr-2022

    Written Statement

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  33. 09-Mar-2022

    Written Statement

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  34. 09-Feb-2022

    Summons

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  35. 10-Jan-2022

    Summons

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  36. 18-Oct-2021

    Summons

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  37. 13-Sep-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  38. 13-Sep-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 351/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: O.S. No. 351/2021 Gangalakshmamma sought a temporary injunction to restrain defendants from constructing on disputed property, claiming she held a legitimate share as the daughter of the original owner. The court dismissed her application, finding she failed to establish the three mandatory requirements for injunctive relief: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. The property was sold to defendants in 1974 and subsequently converted to residential use. Parties bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case