Abdul Rabbani Sab S/o Mahamad Imam Sab vs Imthiyaz S/o Ameer Jan Sab — 33/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 41 rule 1,2. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 13th March 2026.
R.A. - Regular Appeals
CNR: KADG210002652025
e-Filing Number
18-04-2025
Filing Number
33/2025
Filing Date
19-04-2025
Registration No
33/2025
Registration Date
19-04-2025
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI
Judge
972-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAGIRI
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Abdul Rabbani Sab S/o Mahamad Imam Sab
Harshad Bi
Mahamad Jilini S/o Mahamad Imam Sab
Mahamad zikriya S/o Mahamad Imam Sab
Barkath Ali s/o Mahamad Imam Sab
Respondent(s)
Imthiyaz S/o Ameer Jan Sab
Hearing History
Judge: 972-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAGIRI
Disposed
JUDGMENTS CIVIL
ARGUMENTS CIVIL
ARGUMENTS CIVIL
ARGUMENTS CIVIL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-02-2026 | JUDGMENTS CIVIL |
| 10-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS CIVIL |
| 03-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS CIVIL |
| 24-01-2026 | ARGUMENTS CIVIL |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: R.A.NO.33/2025 The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs' permanent injunction suit concerning 5 acres 19 guntas of agricultural land. The court found plaintiffs established lawful possession through inheritance documents (IHC proceedings from 1997) and revenue records, while the defendant's 1957 sale deed referenced an incorrect survey number (20/7 instead of 27), making it inapplicable. The court granted permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiffs' possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.A.NO.33/2025 The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs' permanent injunction suit concerning 5 acres 19 guntas of agricultural land. The court found plaintiffs established lawful possession through inheritance documents (IHC proceedings from 1997) and revenue records, while the defendant's 1957 sale deed referenced an incorrect survey number (20/7 instead of 27), making it inapplicable. The court granted permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiffs' possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts