Venkatalakshamma vs Muniyamma — 193/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section u/sec26r/w7r1. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED EX-PARTE on 10th June 2026.

Case disposed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KACB610005362024

Filing Number

194/2024

Filing Date

11-Jun-2024

Registration No

193/2024

Registration Date

11-Jun-2024

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,SIDLAGHATTA

Judge

1215-Sr Civil Judge and JMFC Sidlaghatta

Decision Date

10-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED EX-PARTE

Last updated 03-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section u/sec26r/w7r1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Venkatalakshamma

    Adv. D.A. ASHWATHNARAYANA

  2. 2.Bagyamma

  3. 3.Muniratahnamma

  4. 4.R.M gangadhara

  5. 5.narayanaswamy

  6. 6.devaraj

  7. 7.beeresh

  8. 8.kalapana

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Muniyamma

  2. 2.munilakshmamma

  3. 3.shoba

  4. 4.nagamani

  5. 5.naleena

  6. 6.Narasimhamurthy

  7. 7.ashwath

  8. 8.mala

  9. 9.jayamma

  10. 10.ramesh

  11. 11.girijamma

  12. 12.narayanaswamy

  13. 13.ambika

  14. 14.munithayamma

  15. 15.harish

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    The court dismissed the plaintiffs' partition suit, finding they failed to prove the suit schedule properties were joint family/ancestral property. The judge held that plaintiffs did not adequately plead or establish how the properties became ancestral, requiring clear proof under Hindu law that properties were inherited from father, grandfather, or great-grandfather. Since defendants appeared ex parte and plaintiffs provided only genealogical trees and revenue records without demonstrating ancestral ownership origins, the court rejected all claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    Sr Civil Judge and JMFC Sidlaghatta

  4. 23-Apr-2026

    Judgments

    Sr Civil Judge and JMFC Sidlaghatta

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    Judgments

    Sr Civil Judge and JMFC Sidlaghatta

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Sr Civil Judge and JMFC Sidlaghatta

  7. 21-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge and JMFC Sidlaghatta

  8. 02-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge and JMFC Sidlaghatta

  9. 28-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge and JMFC Sidlaghatta

  10. 02-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Sr Civil Judge and JMFC Sidlaghatta

  11. 04-Mar-2025

    Summons

    Sr Civil Judge and JMFC Sidlaghatta

  12. 02-Dec-2024

    Summons

    Sr Civil Judge and JMFC Sidlaghatta

  13. 12-Sep-2024

    Summons

    Sr Civil Judge and JMFC Sidlaghatta

  14. 22-Jul-2024

    Summons

    Sr Civil Judge and JMFC Sidlaghatta

  15. 11-Jun-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  16. 11-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 193/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' partition suit, finding they failed to prove the suit schedule properties were joint family/ancestral property. The judge held that plaintiffs did not adequately plead or establish how the properties became ancestral, requiring clear proof under Hindu law that properties were inherited from father, grandfather, or great-grandfather. Since defendants appeared ex parte and plaintiffs provided only genealogical trees and revenue records without demonstrating ancestral ownership origins, the court rejected all claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case