Baburao S/o Vithal Nadgeri Age 45 Years Occ Swachagar In Gram Panchayat R/o Kodal Hanagarga vs Shantamallappa S/o Sharanappa Nagade Age 65 Years Since Deceased Represented Through His Lrs — 5/2024

Case under Sec151 Cpc Section 96. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th March 2026.

R.A. - Regular Appeals

CNR: KAKB210000622024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

25-02-2024

Filing Number

5/2024

Filing Date

26-02-2024

Registration No

5/2024

Registration Date

27-02-2024

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ALAND

Judge

681-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,ALAND

Decision Date

17th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

Sec151 CPC Section 96

Petitioner(s)

Baburao S/o Vithal Nadgeri Age 45 Years Occ Swachagar In Gram Panchayat R/o Kodal Hanagarga

Adv. Sureshchandra Annarao Patil

Respondent(s)

Shantamallappa S/o Sharanappa Nagade Age 65 Years Since Deceased Represented Through His Lrs

Hearing History

Judge: 681-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,ALAND

17-03-2026

Disposed

07-03-2026

JUDGMENTS

19-02-2026

JUDGMENTS

02-02-2026

ARGUMENTS.

13-01-2026

ARGUMENTS.

Final Orders / Judgements

17-03-2026
Judgment

Summary The appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting the plaintiff's claim to ownership and possession of a disputed vacant plot. The court found that the plaintiff failed to produce credible evidence of ancestral ownership, inheritance, or actual possession, noting inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding property measurements and boundaries, absence of grant documents from the Gram Panchayat, and suspicious revenue records given the plaintiff's position as a Gram Panchayat employee. The defendants established superior title through revenue records showing ownership of adjacent land (Sy. No. 195/2). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting the plaintiff's claim to ownership and possession of a disputed vacant plot. The court found that the plaintiff failed to produce credible evidence of ancestral ownership, inheritance, or actual possession, noting inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding property measurements and boundaries, absence of grant documents from the Gram Panchayat, and suspicious revenue records given the plaintiff's position as a Gram Panchayat employee. The defendants established superior title through revenue records showing ownership of adjacent land (Sy. No. 195/2). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ALAND All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case