Sri. Umesh S/o Ramappa Itagi vs Sri. Basateppa Itagi S/o Late Karibasappa Advocate - KITTUR SHAIKH IBRAHIM — 83/2021
Case under Sec. 26 Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 Cpc. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 26th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KADG320015522021
Filing Number
83/2021
Filing Date
25-05-2021
Registration No
83/2021
Registration Date
25-05-2021
Court
PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHAR
Judge
1287-II ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARIHAR
Decision Date
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sri. Umesh S/o Ramappa Itagi
Adv. Mohan Rao M H
Smt. Uma d/o Ramappa Itagi
Respondent(s)
Sri. Basateppa Itagi S/o Late Karibasappa Advocate - KITTUR SHAIKH IBRAHIM
Sri. Ramappa Itagi S/o Late Karibasappa(Legal Heir)
Adv. K.RAJASHEKAR.
Smt. Channabasamma W/o Itagi Ramappa
Adv. K.RAJASHEKAR.
Hearing History
Judge: 1287-II ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARIHAR
Disposed
JUDGMENTS CIVIL
JUDGMENTS CIVIL
JUDGMENTS CIVIL
Objections
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | JUDGMENTS CIVIL |
| 24-03-2026 | JUDGMENTS CIVIL |
| 17-03-2026 | JUDGMENTS CIVIL |
| 16-03-2026 | Objections |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: OS 83/2021 The court partially decreed the plaintiffs' partition suit filed on 25-05-2021. The court declared that the plaintiffs (Umesh and Uma) and defendant no. 3 (Channabasamma) are each entitled to 1/3rd share in Schedule B property (a vacant site at Dittur Village), rejecting the plaintiffs' claim for a 2/3rd share. The request for permanent injunction against defendant no. 1's construction and other reliefs were not addressed in the preliminary decree, and no costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS 83/2021 The court partially decreed the plaintiffs' partition suit filed on 25-05-2021. The court declared that the plaintiffs (Umesh and Uma) and defendant no. 3 (Channabasamma) are each entitled to 1/3rd share in Schedule B property (a vacant site at Dittur Village), rejecting the plaintiffs' claim for a 2/3rd share. The request for permanent injunction against defendant no. 1's construction and other reliefs were not addressed in the preliminary decree, and no costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts