Venkataramaiah vs V G Jayaramaiah — 482/2023

Case under Under Order Vii Rule 1 of Cpc. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 01st September 2026.

Written Statement Next hearing 01-Sep-2026

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KABR610115692023

Filing Number

482/2023

Filing Date

30-Oct-2023

Registration No

482/2023

Registration Date

30-Oct-2023

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA

Judge

104-Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Order Vii Rule 1 of Cpc

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Venkataramaiah

    Adv. A.SIDDAIAH.

  2. 2.Bylappa

  3. 3.Krishnamurthy

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.V G Jayaramaiah

  2. 2.V Harsha Jayaram

  3. 3.V Yatheen Jayaram

  4. 4.The Development Officer

Case History

  1. 01-Sep-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 04-Jun-2026

    Written Statement

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  3. 28-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  5. 09-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  6. 07-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  7. 19-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  8. 24-Sep-2025

    Objection

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  9. 05-Aug-2025

    Objection

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  10. 26-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  11. 25-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  12. 10-Jan-2025

    OrdersView PDF

  13. 10-Jan-2025

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary: OS 482/2023 The plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC was dismissed on January 10, 2025. The court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case regarding ownership and possession of the disputed property (old katha No.27/1, new No.51/51). Critical discrepancies existed between the property measurements claimed in the plaint (80×53 feet) and those in their own ancestral document Form No.9 (26×30 feet), and boundaries differed significantly. Without credible documentary evidence of possession, the court concluded a full trial was necessary and declined interim relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  14. 10-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  15. 18-Dec-2024

    Orders

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  16. 19-Nov-2024

    Orders

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  17. 06-Nov-2024

    Reply

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  18. 23-Oct-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  19. 25-Sep-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  20. 17-Sep-2024

    Objection

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  21. 13-Sep-2024

    Reply

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  22. 31-Aug-2024

    Reply

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  23. 01-Aug-2024

    Reply

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  24. 18-Jul-2024

    Reply

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  25. 16-Jul-2024

    Reply

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  26. 11-Jul-2024

    Reply

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  27. 09-Jul-2024

    Arguments

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  28. 01-Jul-2024

    Arguments

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  29. 22-Jun-2024

    Arguments

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  30. 29-May-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  31. 23-Apr-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  32. 18-Apr-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  33. 08-Apr-2024

    Hearing

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  34. 21-Mar-2024

    Written Statement And Objection

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  35. 07-Mar-2024

    Written Statement And Objection

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  36. 30-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  37. 01-Dec-2023

    Summons

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  38. 03-Nov-2023

    Emergent Notice

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  39. 02-Nov-2023

    Orders

    Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  40. 30-Oct-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  41. 30-Oct-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 482/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OS 482/2023 The plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC was dismissed on January 10, 2025. The court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case regarding ownership and possession of the disputed property (old katha No.27/1, new No.51/51). Critical discrepancies existed between the property measurements claimed in the plaint (80×53 feet) and those in their own ancestral document Form No.9 (26×30 feet), and boundaries differed significantly. Without credible documentary evidence of possession, the court concluded a full trial was necessary and declined interim relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case