Fakeeragouda Vekkanagouda Huded vs Prakash Veerappa Arali — 162/2023
Case under Order 7 Rule 1 Section CPC. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 30th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KADW400010252023
Filing Number
163/2023
Filing Date
11-Dec-2023
Registration No
162/2023
Registration Date
12-Dec-2023
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDGOL
Judge
302-CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
Last updated 21-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Fakeeragouda Vekkanagouda Huded
Adv. M B Budihal
Respondent(s)
-
1.Prakash Veerappa Arali
-
2.Smt.Padmvati wife of Ishwargouda Mudiveerangoudar
Adv. M M Gudawala
-
3.Dyavanagouda son of Ishwargouda Mudiveerangoudar
Adv. M M Gudawala
-
4.Smt.Rashmi wife of Satish Patil
Adv. M M Gudawala
-
5.Shankargouda son of Channappagouda Mudiveerangoudar
Adv. M M Gudawala
-
6.Somappa son of Virupaxappa Alagawadi
Case History
-
30-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
16-Jun-2026
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
10-Jun-2026
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
03-Jun-2026
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
18-Mar-2026
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
09-Mar-2026
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
24-Feb-2026
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
20-Jan-2026
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
05-Jan-2026
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
19-Nov-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
13-Oct-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
03-Sep-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
13-Aug-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
13-Aug-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
06-Aug-2025
DepositionView PDF
Case Summary: 162/2023 Court Order Date: 06.08.2025 The court addressed a property dispute involving ancestral land (Survey No. 46/3, measuring 4 acres 26 guntas) originally registered to Kulkarni. The petitioner claimed the property through his mother as of 31.05.1965. The case involves competing claims regarding rightful ownership and succession rights, with disputes arising from a 2013 family partition. The court's order appears to address standing and succession issues, noting that certain parties (Neelamma and Vasant) may have legitimate claims as coparceners to the ancestral property. The matter was adjourned to allow additional time for the petitioner's arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Aug-2025
Cross Of P.W.
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
24-Jun-2025
Cross Of P.W.
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
10-Jun-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
10-Jun-2025
Cross Of P.W.
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
24-Mar-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
03-Mar-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
29-Jan-2025
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
12-Dec-2024
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
28-Nov-2024
IssueView PDF
-
28-Nov-2024
Evidence
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
12-Nov-2024
Issues
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
13-Sep-2024
Settlement
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
09-Aug-2024
Settlement
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
12-Jul-2024
Settlement
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
12-Jun-2024
Settlement
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
16-Mar-2024
Settlement
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
11-Mar-2024
Settlement
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
01-Mar-2024
Compliance of Order
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
01-Feb-2024
Written statement
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
17-Jan-2024
Appearance Of Party
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kundgol
-
12-Dec-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Dec-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 162/2023
Case Summary: 162/2023 Court Order Date: 06.08.2025 The court addressed a property dispute involving ancestral land (Survey No. 46/3, measuring 4 acres 26 guntas) originally registered to Kulkarni. The petitioner claimed the property through his mother as of 31.05.1965. The case involves competing claims regarding rightful ownership and succession rights, with disputes arising from a 2013 family partition. The court's order appears to address standing and succession issues, noting that certain parties (Neelamma and Vasant) may have legitimate claims as coparceners to the ancestral property. The matter was adjourned to allow additional time for the petitioner's arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts