Avirodh S/o Gopalrao Kattimani Age 29 Years Occ Agriculture R/o Bidar cross Chincholi Tq Chincholi vs Roopkala W/o Gopalrao Kattimani Age 55 Years Occ Agriculture R/o Bidar Cross Chincholi Tq Chincholi — 86/2024
Case under Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 of Cpc Section 7. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 30th April 2026.
O.S - Original Suit
CNR: KAKB420013152024
Next Hearing
30th April 2026
Filing Number
87/2024
Filing Date
11-06-2024
Registration No
86/2024
Registration Date
11-06-2024
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINCHOLI
Judge
325-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,Chincholi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Avirodh S/o Gopalrao Kattimani Age 29 Years Occ Agriculture R/o Bidar cross Chincholi Tq Chincholi
Adv. A.S.HEGADE
Nishabdha D/o Gopalrao Kattimani Age 27 Years Occ Agriculture R/o Bidar Cross Chincholi Tq Chincholi
Shubhodh S/o Gopalrao Kattimani Age 24 Years Occ Agriculture R/o Bidar Cross Chincholi Tq Chincholi
Respondent(s)
Roopkala W/o Gopalrao Kattimani Age 55 Years Occ Agriculture R/o Bidar Cross Chincholi Tq Chincholi
Gopalrao S/o Saidappa Kattimani Age 63 Years Occ Agriculture R/o Bidar Cross Chincholi Tq Chincholi
Goureddy Venkateshwar Reddy S/o Goureddy Narayanreddy Age 42 Years R/o Town Malesangam Manipallv man
Hearing History
Judge: 325-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,Chincholi
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 02-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 01-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 14-10-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 22-08-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Principal Civil Judge at Chincholi dismissed Defendant No. 3's application (I.A. No. II) seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court found that the plaint adequately discloses a cause of action—three adult children claim the suit property is ancestral property of the family, alleging that their parents sold it without their knowledge or consent. The court held that whether the property is ancestral or self-acquired is a matter of evidence requiring a full trial, not to be decided at the plaint stage, and that the cited precedents were distinguishable as they involved admitted partitions and expired limitation periods, neither present here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Principal Civil Judge at Chincholi dismissed Defendant No. 3's application (I.A. No. II) seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court found that the plaint adequately discloses a cause of action—three adult children claim the suit property is ancestral property of the family, alleging that their parents sold it without their knowledge or consent. The court held that whether the property is ancestral or self-acquired is a matter of evidence requiring a full trial, not to be decided at the plaint stage, and that the cited precedents were distinguishable as they involved admitted partitions and expired limitation periods, neither present here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts