Sri Shivaji S/o late Sannappa vs Meenakshamma W/o Rajappa — 13/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O41 R1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 02nd May 2026.
R.A. - Regular Appeals
CNR: KADG210001262025
e-Filing Number
19-02-2025
Filing Number
13/2025
Filing Date
20-02-2025
Registration No
13/2025
Registration Date
20-02-2025
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI
Judge
972-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAGIRI
Decision Date
02nd May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sri Shivaji S/o late Sannappa
Adv. G S MOHAN KUMAR
Shivananda S/o late Sannappa
Adv. G S MOHAN KUMAR
Respondent(s)
Meenakshamma W/o Rajappa
Hearing History
Judge: 972-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAGIRI
Disposed
JUDGMENTS CIVIL
JUDGMENTS CIVIL
JUDGMENTS CIVIL
FOR REPLY
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 29-04-2026 | JUDGMENTS CIVIL |
| 25-04-2026 | JUDGMENTS CIVIL |
| 01-04-2026 | JUDGMENTS CIVIL |
| 13-03-2026 | FOR REPLY |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: R.A. No. 13/2025 Decision: The appellate court dismissed both the appeal and the application for additional evidence, upholding the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership and actual possession of the disputed property on the date of suit, which is essential for injunction relief under the Specific Relief Act. Key Reasoning: The plaintiffs' boundaries per their pleadings did not match the tax assessment document (Ex.P.1) they produced. The plaintiffs admitted during cross-examination that the defendant had not encroached their property and had constructed an Ashraya house under government scheme. Without establishing clear title and possession, the plaintiffs could not claim permanent or mandatory injunction against the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.A. No. 13/2025 Decision: The appellate court dismissed both the appeal and the application for additional evidence, upholding the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership and actual possession of the disputed property on the date of suit, which is essential for injunction relief under the Specific Relief Act. Key Reasoning: The plaintiffs' boundaries per their pleadings did not match the tax assessment document (Ex.P.1) they produced. The plaintiffs admitted during cross-examination that the defendant had not encroached their property and had constructed an Ashraya house under government scheme. Without establishing clear title and possession, the plaintiffs could not claim permanent or mandatory injunction against the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts