Mariyamma vs G.H. Vijendra — 9/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Sec.104,R/w.O.41,R.1(r). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed

M.A. - Miscellanuous Appeals

CNR: KACM510003682025

Filing Number

8/2025

Filing Date

04-Nov-2025

Registration No

9/2025

Registration Date

04-Nov-2025

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,NARASIMHARAJAPURA

Judge

1218-Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Sec.104,R/w.O.41,R.1(r)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Mariyamma

    Adv. H.A. SAJU

  2. 2.Sowmya

    Adv. H.A. SAJU

  3. 3.Dhanya

    Adv. H.A. SAJU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.G.H. Vijendra

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Judgment

    Case Summary: M.A. No. 09/2025 Court Decision: The appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court's rejection of the temporary injunction application. Key Reasoning: The court found that the plaintiffs/appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for temporary injunction because the identity and possession of the disputed property (1 acre 16 guntas in Sy. No.27, Vittala Village) remained highly contested. The defendant had produced evidence of a 2006 sale deed and separate government grant regularization for a house structure, creating fundamental disputes about property boundaries and actual possession that require full trial adjudication rather than interim relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  4. 07-Apr-2026

    Judgments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    Judgments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  7. 10-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  8. 03-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  9. 24-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  10. 16-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  11. 10-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  12. 03-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  13. 27-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  14. 19-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  15. 12-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  16. 06-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  17. 15-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  18. 08-Dec-2025

    For Objection

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  19. 24-Nov-2025

    Notice

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  20. 17-Nov-2025

    Notice

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  21. 05-Nov-2025

    Notice

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Narasimharajapura

  22. 04-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 04-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 9/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: M.A. No. 09/2025 Court Decision: The appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court's rejection of the temporary injunction application. Key Reasoning: The court found that the plaintiffs/appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for temporary injunction because the identity and possession of the disputed property (1 acre 16 guntas in Sy. No.27, Vittala Village) remained highly contested. The defendant had produced evidence of a 2006 sale deed and separate government grant regularization for a house structure, creating fundamental disputes about property boundaries and actual possession that require full trial adjudication rather than interim relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case