Jadav Sangram S/o Late. Jadav Cheniya, Age 67 yrs, R/o Ramchandrapuram, Dist Medak. TS vs Suresh Jadava S/o Sangram Jadav, Age 46 yrs, R/o Patighanpur, Dist Sangareddy. TS — 74/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 21st July 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAKB410002232024
Next Hearing
21st July 2026
Filing Number
74/2024
Filing Date
27-06-2024
Registration No
74/2024
Registration Date
27-06-2024
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINCHOLI
Judge
828-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,Chincholi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jadav Sangram S/o Late. Jadav Cheniya, Age 67 yrs, R/o Ramchandrapuram, Dist Medak. TS
Adv. B.SUDARSHAN
Respondent(s)
Suresh Jadava S/o Sangram Jadav, Age 46 yrs, R/o Patighanpur, Dist Sangareddy. TS
Hearing History
Judge: 828-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,Chincholi
EVIDENCE
ISSUES.
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-06-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 15-04-2026 | ISSUES. |
| 13-03-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 03-03-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 17-02-2026 | SUMMONS |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS No. 74/2024 Outcome: Temporary injunction application GRANTED. The court restrained the defendant from alienating agricultural property pending trial. The plaintiff (67-year-old father) alleged the defendant (46-year-old son) fraudulently obtained a gift deed while the plaintiff was ill, then mutated the property in his own name. The defendant claimed the gift was voluntary. Finding the plaintiff established a prima facie case of fraud, balance of convenience favoring him, and irreparable harm if injunction denied, the court prohibited property alienation until suit disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS No. 74/2024 Outcome: Temporary injunction application GRANTED. The court restrained the defendant from alienating agricultural property pending trial. The plaintiff (67-year-old father) alleged the defendant (46-year-old son) fraudulently obtained a gift deed while the plaintiff was ill, then mutated the property in his own name. The defendant claimed the gift was voluntary. Finding the plaintiff established a prima facie case of fraud, balance of convenience favoring him, and irreparable harm if injunction denied, the court prohibited property alienation until suit disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts