Vijaylaxmi vs Babamma Advocate - VIJAYKUMAR MISKIN — 2/2026

Case under U/s 54 of Cpc Section 54. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

FDP - Petitioner For Final Decree pr

CNR: KAKB710000602026

Filing Number

2/2026

Filing Date

06-Feb-2026

Registration No

2/2026

Registration Date

06-Feb-2026

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SEDAM

Judge

650-Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC , Sedam.

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

U/s 54 of Cpc Section 54

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Vijaylaxmi

    Adv. SRI. ANILKUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Babamma Advocate - VIJAYKUMAR MISKIN

  2. 2.Basawaraj

    Adv. VIJAYKUMAR MISKIN

  3. 3.Raghavendra(Legal Heir)

  4. 4.Vasanta

    Adv. VIJAYKUMAR MISKIN

  5. 5.Mohammed Sohail

    Adv. Maqsood Afzal K Jagirdar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary: FDP No. 2/2026 Court Decision: The Senior Civil Judge allowed the final decree petition, rejecting the court commissioner's partition report. The court allotted entire suit item No. 2 to defendants and subsequently to purchaser Respondent No. 5 (who bought from Defendant No. 3), while allotting entire suit items No. 1 and 3 to petitioner Vijayalaxmi to equalize shares and accommodate the mid-litigation property purchase. Key Reasoning: The court rejected the commissioner's report because equities arising from Respondent No. 5's purchase during litigation could not be worked out based on the existing report. The court then recalculated shares: since the plaintiff was entitled to 66.5 guntas from item No. 2 but entire item No. 2 went to defendants/purchaser, she received complete items No. 1 and 3 instead—approximately 4-5 guntas less but more convenient for agricultural operations as consolidated holdings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC , Sedam.

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC , Sedam.

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Arguments-CIVIL

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC , Sedam.

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC , Sedam.

  7. 07-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC , Sedam.

  8. 28-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC , Sedam.

  9. 27-Feb-2026

    Orders

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC , Sedam.

  10. 21-Feb-2026

    Objection

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC , Sedam.

  11. 07-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  12. 06-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: FDP No. 2/2026 Court Decision: The Senior Civil Judge allowed the final decree petition, rejecting the court commissioner's partition report. The court allotted entire suit item No. 2 to defendants and subsequently to purchaser Respondent No. 5 (who bought from Defendant No. 3), while allotting entire suit items No. 1 and 3 to petitioner Vijayalaxmi to equalize shares and accommodate the mid-litigation property purchase. Key Reasoning: The court rejected the commissioner's report because equities arising from Respondent No. 5's purchase during litigation could not be worked out based on the existing report. The court then recalculated shares: since the plaintiff was entitled to 66.5 guntas from item No. 2 but entire item No. 2 went to defendants/purchaser, she received complete items No. 1 and 3 instead—approximately 4-5 guntas less but more convenient for agricultural operations as consolidated holdings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case