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
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
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
HEARING
ORDERS
ORDERS
HEARING
Written Statement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 16-02-2026 | ORDERS |
| 30-01-2026 | ORDERS |
| 12-01-2026 | HEARING |
| 11-12-2025 | Written Statement |
Interim 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.
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
Explore other courts