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

Case disposed

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

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section Sec 96, O41 R5

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

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

02-05-2026
Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case