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
Filing Number
390/2025
Filing Date
07-Nov-2025
Registration No
390/2025
Registration Date
07-Nov-2025
Court
PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND I ADDL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR
Judge
359-Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court Ranebennur
Last updated 13-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Drakshayani D,o Kuruvatteppa Maganuru.
Adv. Jayappa Irappa Karimallannanavar
Respondent(s)
-
1.D.1. Kenchamma W,o Kuruvatteppa Maganuru
-
2.D.2. Chandrappa S,o Kuruvateppa Maganuru
-
3.D.3. Nagappa S,o Rangappa Adiveppanavar
-
4.D.4. Pradeep S,o Nagappa Adiveppanavar
-
5.D.5. Girish S,o Nagappa Adiveppanavar
-
6.D.6. Santosh S,o Nagappa Adiveppanavar
Case History
-
16-Mar-2026
Next hearingPending
-
02-Mar-2026
OrdersView PDF
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.
-
02-Mar-2026
Hearing
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court Ranebennur
-
16-Feb-2026
Orders
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court Ranebennur
-
30-Jan-2026
Orders
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court Ranebennur
-
12-Jan-2026
Hearing
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court Ranebennur
-
11-Dec-2025
Written Statement
Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Court Ranebennur
-
07-Nov-2025
OrdersView PDF
-
07-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 390/2025
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.
Explore other courts