Suresh S/o Yallappa Nagenahalli vs Revanasiddappa S/o Yallappa Nagenahalli Advocate - UDD — 60/2022

Case under Order 7 Rule 1 and 3 Cpc. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAHV520007352022

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

27th March 2026

Filing Number

59/2022

Filing Date

23-03-2022

Registration No

60/2022

Registration Date

23-03-2022

Court

PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND I ADDL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR

Judge

359-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT RANEBENNUR

Acts & Sections

Order 7 Rule 1 and 3 Cpc

Petitioner(s)

Suresh S/o Yallappa Nagenahalli

Adv. S.R.SAWKAR

Respondent(s)

Revanasiddappa S/o Yallappa Nagenahalli Advocate - UDD

Hearing History

Judge: 359-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT RANEBENNUR

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE

19-02-2026

EVIDENCE

04-02-2026

EVIDENCE

19-01-2026

EVIDENCE

17-12-2025

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

24-03-2022
Orders
01-03-2023
Orders
19-04-2023
Deposition
20-07-2023
Issue
03-07-2024
Deposition
01-12-2025
Deposition

Summary OS No. 60/2022 - Property Dispute (Dated 01-12-2025) The court heard witness testimony in this property dispute case involving a 6-acre land sale (sold for ₹5,55,000). The court found that the plaintiff made fraudulent representations using false information to execute the sale deed in her name, with no documentary evidence supporting her financial contribution. The court concluded that the plaintiff has no legal rights to the disputed property, as the entire purchase money was provided by the defendant, and dismissed the plaintiff's claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary OS No. 60/2022 - Property Dispute (Dated 01-12-2025) The court heard witness testimony in this property dispute case involving a 6-acre land sale (sold for ₹5,55,000). The court found that the plaintiff made fraudulent representations using false information to execute the sale deed in her name, with no documentary evidence supporting her financial contribution. The court concluded that the plaintiff has no legal rights to the disputed property, as the entire purchase money was provided by the defendant, and dismissed the plaintiff's claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND I ADDL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case