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

EVIDENCE

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

Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 of Cpc Section 7

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

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE

02-02-2026

EVIDENCE

01-12-2025

EVIDENCE

14-10-2025

EVIDENCE

22-08-2025

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

12-12-2024
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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINCHOLI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case