Rudravva @ Ratnavva Wo Chikkappa Bidari.Ro Hirebudihal.Tq-Hirekerur. vs D-1. Basavannappa S/o Chanabasappa Shetra — 2/2016
Case under 7 Rule 1 and 3 Cpc. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 16th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAHV410000022016
Next Hearing
16th March 2026
Filing Number
2/2016
Filing Date
02-01-2016
Registration No
2/2016
Registration Date
02-01-2016
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIREKERUR
Judge
357-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC COURT HIREKERUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rudravva @ Ratnavva Wo Chikkappa Bidari.Ro Hirebudihal.Tq-Hirekerur.
Adv. U.M.Hitlamani.
Respondent(s)
D-1. Basavannappa S/o Chanabasappa Shetra
D-2. Mahadevappa S/o Chanabasappa Shetra
D-3. Jagadeeshappa S/o Chanabasappa Shetra
D-4. Gadigeppa S/o Chanabasappa Shetra
D-5. Karabasappa S/o Nagappa Bidari
Pro 8. Manjappa Nagappa Bidari
Pro 9. Sureshppa S/o Nagappa Bidari.
Keshav Nagappa Bidari
Pro 11 Nagamma W/o Basavaneppa Shetter Alias Shetru
Hearing History
Judge: 357-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC COURT HIREKERUR
EVIDENCE
Written Stetement
SUMMONS
Amendment Plaint
SUMMONS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 13-02-2026 | Written Stetement |
| 06-02-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 03-12-2025 | Amendment Plaint |
| 11-11-2025 | SUMMONS |
Interim Orders
Summary The court examined witness testimony on 24.07.2025 in this Original Suit (O.S. No. 02/2016). The plaintiff's testimony revealed significant inconsistencies and lack of knowledge regarding disputed property claims, including the acquisition date, manner of possession, and details of property divisions among defendants 1-5. The court found the plaintiff's evidence unconvincing and concluded that defendants 1-5 have provided more reliable testimony regarding their acquisition and possession of the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court examined witness testimony on 24.07.2025 in this Original Suit (O.S. No. 02/2016). The plaintiff's testimony revealed significant inconsistencies and lack of knowledge regarding disputed property claims, including the acquisition date, manner of possession, and details of property divisions among defendants 1-5. The court found the plaintiff's evidence unconvincing and concluded that defendants 1-5 have provided more reliable testimony regarding their acquisition and possession of the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts