SHANKAR SHETTY vs RANGASHETTY — 13/2023

Case under Under Order 7 Rule 1 Cpc. Status: Evidence.. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.

Evidence. Next hearing 24-Jun-2026

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAHS200000132023

Filing Number

13/2023

Filing Date

04-Jan-2023

Registration No

13/2023

Registration Date

04-Jan-2023

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ALUR

Judge

348-CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Order 7 Rule 1 Cpc

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHANKAR SHETTY

    Adv. R.B. SURESH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RANGASHETTY

  2. 2.BHARATH

Case History

  1. 24-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 03-Mar-2026

    DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary: Shankar Shetty v. Rangashetty and Bharath (13/2023) This property dispute concerns a 120x50 feet plot purchased in 1998 by Timmegowda and Ningamma, later subdivided and partitioned among heirs. Petitioner Shankar Shetty claims ownership rights to a 10x20 feet portion, alleging respondents wrongfully occupied a disputed 5-foot boundary strip and failed to properly demarcate the property. The court examined survey records, partition documents, and boundary disputes, finding insufficient evidence of respondents' alleged encroachment on the petitioner's demarcated area and insufficient documentary proof supporting petitioner's exclusive ownership claims. Order: Case dismissed; no relief granted to petitioner. (Dated 03.03.2026) This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  5. 03-Mar-2026

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  6. 16-Feb-2026

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  7. 02-Feb-2026

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  8. 07-Jan-2026

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  9. 08-Dec-2025

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  10. 25-Nov-2025

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  11. 05-Nov-2025

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  12. 10-Sep-2025

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  13. 23-Aug-2025

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  14. 04-Aug-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  15. 04-Aug-2025

    IssueView PDF

  16. 04-Aug-2025

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  17. 05-Jul-2025

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  18. 23-Jun-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  19. 23-Jun-2025

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  20. 06-Jun-2025

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  21. 17-Feb-2025

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  22. 13-Nov-2024

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  23. 20-Aug-2024

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  24. 10-Jun-2024

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  25. 19-Feb-2024

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  26. 28-Nov-2023

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  27. 02-Sep-2023

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  28. 02-Aug-2023

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  29. 04-Jul-2023

    Evidence.

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  30. 23-May-2023

    Summons

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  31. 24-Mar-2023

    Summons

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  32. 27-Feb-2023

    Summons

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  33. 04-Jan-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  34. 04-Jan-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 13/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Shankar Shetty v. Rangashetty and Bharath (13/2023) This property dispute concerns a 120x50 feet plot purchased in 1998 by Timmegowda and Ningamma, later subdivided and partitioned among heirs. Petitioner Shankar Shetty claims ownership rights to a 10x20 feet portion, alleging respondents wrongfully occupied a disputed 5-foot boundary strip and failed to properly demarcate the property. The court examined survey records, partition documents, and boundary disputes, finding insufficient evidence of respondents' alleged encroachment on the petitioner's demarcated area and insufficient documentary proof supporting petitioner's exclusive ownership claims. Order: Case dismissed; no relief granted to petitioner. (Dated 03.03.2026) This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case