Drakshayani D,o Kuruvatteppa Maganuru. vs D.1. Kenchamma W,o Kuruvatteppa Maganuru — 390/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U,o,7,R,1and2,R,w,S,26. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 16th March 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAHV520018532025

HEARING

Next Hearing

16th March 2026

Filing Number

390/2025

Filing Date

07-11-2025

Registration No

390/2025

Registration Date

07-11-2025

Court

PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND I ADDL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR

Judge

359-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT RANEBENNUR

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U,o,7,R,1and2,R,w,S,26

Petitioner(s)

Drakshayani D,o Kuruvatteppa Maganuru.

Adv. Jayappa Irappa Karimallannanavar

Respondent(s)

D.1. Kenchamma W,o Kuruvatteppa Maganuru

D.2. Chandrappa S,o Kuruvateppa Maganuru

D.3. Nagappa S,o Rangappa Adiveppanavar

D.4. Pradeep S,o Nagappa Adiveppanavar

D.5. Girish S,o Nagappa Adiveppanavar

D.6. Santosh S,o Nagappa Adiveppanavar

Hearing History

Judge: 359-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT RANEBENNUR

02-03-2026

HEARING

16-02-2026

ORDERS

30-01-2026

ORDERS

12-01-2026

HEARING

11-12-2025

Written Statement

Interim Orders

07-11-2025
Orders
02-03-2026
Orders

Summary: The court granted a temporary injunction restraining all defendants from alienating, creating charges, or establishing third-party rights over the disputed joint family property until the suit's disposal. The plaintiff established a prima facie case for partition and separate possession of her 1/3 share, and the court found that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, as rejecting the injunction would cause greater irreparable harm than granting it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court granted a temporary injunction restraining all defendants from alienating, creating charges, or establishing third-party rights over the disputed joint family property until the suit's disposal. The plaintiff established a prima facie case for partition and separate possession of her 1/3 share, and the court found that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, as rejecting the injunction would cause greater irreparable harm than granting it. 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