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
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
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
Disposed
JUDGMENTS
JUDGMENTS
ARGUMENTS.
ARGUMENTS.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | JUDGMENTS | |
| 19-02-2026 | JUDGMENTS | |
| 02-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS. | |
| 13-01-2026 | ARGUMENTS. |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts