Smt.B.R.Harini vs Smt.Byramma — 86/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/o,VII,Rule,1,R/w,Sec,26. Status: ORDERS. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KACM020014522024
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
86/2024
Filing Date
22-07-2024
Registration No
86/2024
Registration Date
22-07-2024
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKAMAGALURU
Judge
215-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Smt.B.R.Harini
Adv. S.Jagadish, SPA Holder for plaintiffs
Smt.B.R.YASHODHA,
B.R.VANAMALA
Respondent(s)
Smt.Byramma
Sri.B.R.PARAMESHWARA,
.B.R.MOHAN,
C.V.THIMMAIAH
Smt.T.ASWATHAMMA
Hearing History
Judge: 215-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 23-02-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 06-02-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 24-01-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 09-01-2026 | ORDERS |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Case: O.S. No. 86/2024, Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkamagaluru Order Date: 07th March 2026 Outcome: Both Interim Applications (I.A. No. XVII and XVIII) filed by the plaintiffs' Special Power of Attorney (SPA) Holder under Section 151 of CPC have been dismissed. The court rejected the request to appoint the SPA Holder as sole manager of disputed properties and the prayer to restrain defendants from cutting trees, finding that the SPA Holder cannot claim managerial rights over properties whose ownership status remains to be determined in the main partition suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case: O.S. No. 86/2024, Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkamagaluru Order Date: 07th March 2026 Outcome: Both Interim Applications (I.A. No. XVII and XVIII) filed by the plaintiffs' Special Power of Attorney (SPA) Holder under Section 151 of CPC have been dismissed. The court rejected the request to appoint the SPA Holder as sole manager of disputed properties and the prayer to restrain defendants from cutting trees, finding that the SPA Holder cannot claim managerial rights over properties whose ownership status remains to be determined in the main partition suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts