H R Nagaraj vs Smt.Lalithamma — 12/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section VIIRULE1RWSEC26OFCPC. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OTHERWISE on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KACM700000232026

Filing Number

12/2026

Filing Date

09-Jan-2026

Registration No

12/2026

Registration Date

09-Jan-2026

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TARIKERE

Judge

226-Senior CIVIL Judge And Jmfc,tarikere

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OTHERWISE

Last updated 07-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section VIIRULE1RWSEC26OFCPC

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.H R Nagaraj

    Adv. K.N.Vasanth Kumar

  2. 2.G Sudharshan

  3. 3.Swasthik S Lad

  4. 4.Smt Sanjitha S Lad

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Smt.Lalithamma

  2. 2.D-2 Smt Aruna

  3. 3.D-3 Amarthnath,

  4. 4.D-4 Mahendra

  5. 5.D-5 Smt Madhura B

  6. 6.D-6 Mayur

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    Summary The Senior Civil Judge of Tarikere found that the suit lacks proper valuation under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956. The court held that when a suit seeks both specific performance of contract and an alternate relief of declaration based on adverse possession, both reliefs must be valued identically—here, based on the Rs. 50,000 consideration amount in the 1977 agreement—not separately as the plaintiff had done. Consequently, the JMFC lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and returned the plaint to be refiled before the Civil Judge within 30 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Senior CIVIL Judge And Jmfc,tarikere

  4. 03-Mar-2026

    For orders

    Senior CIVIL Judge And Jmfc,tarikere

  5. 23-Jan-2026

    For orders

    Senior CIVIL Judge And Jmfc,tarikere

  6. 09-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 09-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 12/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Senior Civil Judge of Tarikere found that the suit lacks proper valuation under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956. The court held that when a suit seeks both specific performance of contract and an alternate relief of declaration based on adverse possession, both reliefs must be valued identically—here, based on the Rs. 50,000 consideration amount in the 1977 agreement—not separately as the plaintiff had done. Consequently, the JMFC lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and returned the plaint to be refiled before the Civil Judge within 30 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case