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.

Case disposed

R.A. - Regular Appeals

CNR: KADG210001262025

e-Filing Number

19-02-2025

Filing Number

13/2025

Filing Date

20-Feb-2025

Registration No

13/2025

Registration Date

20-Feb-2025

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI

Judge

972-Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

Decision Date

02-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O41 R1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sri Shivaji S/o late Sannappa

    Adv. G S MOHAN KUMAR

  2. 2.Shivananda S/o late Sannappa

    Adv. G S MOHAN KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Meenakshamma W/o Rajappa

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-May-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    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.

  3. 02-May-2026

    Disposed

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  4. 29-Apr-2026

    Judgments CIVIL

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  5. 25-Apr-2026

    Judgments CIVIL

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  6. 01-Apr-2026

    Judgments CIVIL

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  7. 13-Mar-2026

    For Reply

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  8. 17-Feb-2026

    For Reply

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  9. 05-Feb-2026

    For Reply

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  10. 19-Jan-2026

    For Reply

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  11. 18-Dec-2025

    Arguments CIVIL

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  12. 27-Nov-2025

    Arguments CIVIL

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  13. 10-Nov-2025

    Arguments CIVIL

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  14. 14-Oct-2025

    For Objection

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  15. 16-Sep-2025

    Arguments CIVIL

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  16. 19-Aug-2025

    Arguments CIVIL

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  17. 28-Jul-2025

    Arguments CIVIL

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  18. 05-Jul-2025

    Arguments CIVIL

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  19. 12-Jun-2025

    Arguments Criminal

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  20. 20-Mar-2025

    Arguments Criminal

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  21. 24-Feb-2025

    Notice

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Channagiri

  22. 20-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 20-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 13/2025

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case