H S Gurushanthappa S/o Late Shivabasappa vs Theerthappa S/o Late Shivabasappa — 15/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Sec 96, O41 R5. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 02nd May 2026.
M.A. - Miscellanuous Appeals
CNR: KADG210003932025
e-Filing Number
17-06-2025
Filing Number
15/2025
Filing Date
18-06-2025
Registration No
15/2025
Registration Date
18-06-2025
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)
H S Gurushanthappa S/o Late Shivabasappa
Adv. B RUDRAPPA
Respondent(s)
Theerthappa S/o Late Shivabasappa
H S Palkshappa S/o Late Shivabasappa
Hearing History
Judge: 972-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAGIRI
Disposed
JUDGMENTS CIVIL
ARGUMENTS CIVIL
ARGUMENTS CIVIL
ARGUMENTS CIVIL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-04-2026 | JUDGMENTS CIVIL |
| 13-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS CIVIL |
| 20-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS CIVIL |
| 06-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS CIVIL |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: M.A.NO.15/2025 Court Decision: The Senior Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiff's appeal challenging the trial court's rejection of a temporary injunction application. The trial court's order denying interim relief was confirmed. Key Reasoning: The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for temporary injunction because he suppressed material facts—specifically the existence of a pending partition suit filed by his sisters and the joint family nature of the property. The plaintiff's claims that the suit property was self-acquired property purchased in 2009 lacked sufficient documentary support at the preliminary stage, and questions about how he financed construction (Rs.25 lakhs) when earning less required full trial determination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: M.A.NO.15/2025 Court Decision: The Senior Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiff's appeal challenging the trial court's rejection of a temporary injunction application. The trial court's order denying interim relief was confirmed. Key Reasoning: The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for temporary injunction because he suppressed material facts—specifically the existence of a pending partition suit filed by his sisters and the joint family nature of the property. The plaintiff's claims that the suit property was self-acquired property purchased in 2009 lacked sufficient documentary support at the preliminary stage, and questions about how he financed construction (Rs.25 lakhs) when earning less required full trial determination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts