JAGADESHWAR SHARANAYYA KALAAL vs Sabanna S/o Mahadevappa Age-Major Occupation Agriculture. Advocate - T.V.PATIL — 133/2011
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7rule1and2. Status: SUMMONS. Next hearing: 04th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAKB510005282011
Next Hearing
04th April 2026
Filing Date
04-01-2011
Registration No
133/2011
Registration Date
04-01-2011
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHITAPUR
Judge
951-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, Chittapur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JAGADESHWAR SHARANAYYA KALAAL
Adv. M.V.LADDA
Respondent(s)
Sabanna S/o Mahadevappa Age-Major Occupation Agriculture. Advocate - T.V.PATIL
Tipanna S/o Mahadevappa age Major Occ-Agriculture.(Legal Heir)
Iranna S/o Sabanna age major Occ-Agriculture,
Malshetappa S/o Subashchandra age major Occ-Agriculture.
M/S Rajeshree Cement a unit of Grasim industries limited
Hearing History
Judge: 951-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, Chittapur
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
SUMMONS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 03-02-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 06-01-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 18-12-2025 | SUMMONS |
| 20-11-2025 | SUMMONS |
Interim Orders
Case Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's suit under Order VII Rule-11(b) of the CPC for insufficient court fee payment. The court found that the plaintiff incorrectly valued the property as agricultural land when it had lost its agricultural character after defendant no.5 (Rajeshree Cement) erected a cement factory on it. The plaintiff was directed to revalue the property based on its market value as non-agricultural land and pay the appropriate court fee before the suit could proceed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's suit under Order VII Rule-11(b) of the CPC for insufficient court fee payment. The court found that the plaintiff incorrectly valued the property as agricultural land when it had lost its agricultural character after defendant no.5 (Rajeshree Cement) erected a cement factory on it. The plaintiff was directed to revalue the property based on its market value as non-agricultural land and pay the appropriate court fee before the suit could proceed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts