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

Case disposed

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

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section O41 R1

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

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

02-05-2026
Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case