Melleshappa G. vs Rudramma — 207/2021
Case under Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc Section 7. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 24th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KADG520015682021
Filing Number
214/2021
Filing Date
03-08-2021
Registration No
207/2021
Registration Date
03-08-2021
Court
CIVIL JUGDE AND JMFC, HONNALI
Judge
255-PRL CIVIL JUGDE AND JMFC HONNALI
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Melleshappa G.
Adv. S.N.PRAKASHA
Respondent(s)
Rudramma
Hearing History
Judge: 255-PRL CIVIL JUGDE AND JMFC HONNALI
Disposed
JUDGMENTS CIVIL
JUDGMENTS CIVIL
ARGUMENTS CIVIL
FOR REPLY
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | JUDGMENTS CIVIL |
| 17-03-2026 | JUDGMENTS CIVIL |
| 13-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS CIVIL |
| 12-03-2026 | FOR REPLY |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Melleshappa G. v. Rudramma (OS 207/2021) The Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Honnali dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction over a property described as measuring 37½ feet on the eastern side of survey number 4/21 in Chatnahalli Village, Davanagere District. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence, extent, and boundaries of the claimed property through cogent documentary evidence. Although the plaintiff produced registered sale deeds from 1956 showing transfers of property measured in acres and guntas, he provided no credible evidence that the property was converted to feet or that the claimed 37½-foot portion existed as a distinct, identifiable property. The defendant likewise failed to prove ownership of the 0.05 guntas she claimed. Consequently, all issues were decided against both parties, and the suit was dismissed with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Melleshappa G. v. Rudramma (OS 207/2021) The Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Honnali dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction over a property described as measuring 37½ feet on the eastern side of survey number 4/21 in Chatnahalli Village, Davanagere District. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence, extent, and boundaries of the claimed property through cogent documentary evidence. Although the plaintiff produced registered sale deeds from 1956 showing transfers of property measured in acres and guntas, he provided no credible evidence that the property was converted to feet or that the claimed 37½-foot portion existed as a distinct, identifiable property. The defendant likewise failed to prove ownership of the 0.05 guntas she claimed. Consequently, all issues were decided against both parties, and the suit was dismissed with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts