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
Filing Number
87/2024
Filing Date
11-Jun-2024
Registration No
86/2024
Registration Date
11-Jun-2024
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINCHOLI
Judge
325-Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
Last updated 13-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Avirodh S/o Gopalrao Kattimani Age 29 Years Occ Agriculture R/o Bidar cross Chincholi Tq Chincholi
Adv. A.S.HEGADE
-
2.Nishabdha D/o Gopalrao Kattimani Age 27 Years Occ Agriculture R/o Bidar Cross Chincholi Tq Chincholi
-
3.Shubhodh S/o Gopalrao Kattimani Age 24 Years Occ Agriculture R/o Bidar Cross Chincholi Tq Chincholi
Respondent(s)
-
1.Roopkala W/o Gopalrao Kattimani Age 55 Years Occ Agriculture R/o Bidar Cross Chincholi Tq Chincholi
-
2.Gopalrao S/o Saidappa Kattimani Age 63 Years Occ Agriculture R/o Bidar Cross Chincholi Tq Chincholi
-
3.Goureddy Venkateshwar Reddy S/o Goureddy Narayanreddy Age 42 Years R/o Town Malesangam Manipallv man
Case History
-
30-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
02-Feb-2026
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
01-Dec-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
14-Oct-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
22-Aug-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
09-Jul-2025
Evidence
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
12-Jun-2025
List Of Witness And Documents
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
04-Apr-2025
List Of Witness And Documents
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
26-Mar-2025
Issues
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
27-Feb-2025
Issues
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
31-Jan-2025
Hearing
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
08-Jan-2025
Hearing
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
12-Dec-2024
OrdersView PDF
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.
-
12-Dec-2024
Summons
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
04-Dec-2024
Orders.
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
14-Nov-2024
Orders.
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
13-Nov-2024
Hearing
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
06-Nov-2024
Hearing
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
30-Oct-2024
Hearing
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
14-Oct-2024
objection
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
17-Sep-2024
objection
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
27-Aug-2024
objection
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
03-Aug-2024
objection
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC,Chincholi
-
12-Jun-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Jun-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 86/2024
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.
Explore other courts