V.V Deenath Kumar vs V.A Vasudeva Advocate - Balasubrahmanya K. P. — 45/2016

Case under - Section U/Sc26R/WVIIrule1ofCPC. Status: EVIDENCE - Civil. Next hearing: 16th March 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAKD020003052016

EVIDENCE - Civil

Next Hearing

16th March 2026

Filing Number

45/2016

Filing Date

25-04-2016

Registration No

45/2016

Registration Date

25-04-2016

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MADIKERI

Judge

364-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MADIKERI.

Acts & Sections

- Section U/Sc26R/WVIIrule1ofCPC

Petitioner(s)

V.V Deenath Kumar

Adv. Jithendra Kumara M R

Respondent(s)

V.A Vasudeva Advocate - Balasubrahmanya K. P.

Smt Leelavathi

V.V.Vinay Kumar

Smt Bhavani

Smt Kanya Kumari

Dhamini

Bharath

V.K.Subash

Rupini V.H.

Hearing History

Judge: 364-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MADIKERI.

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE - Civil

21-02-2026

ORDERS

04-02-2026

ORDERS

19-01-2026

ORDERS

05-01-2026

ORDERS

Interim Orders

14-01-2019
Deposition
24-06-2019
Orders
03-03-2021
Deposition
27-08-2021
Deposition
31-07-2024
Deposition
22-08-2024
Deposition
18-09-2024
Deposition
15-11-2024
Deposition
17-08-2017
Issue
28-06-2025
Issue

Summary: The Senior Civil Judge and CJM of Kodagu-Madikeri framed three additional issues in this civil property dispute on 28.06.2025: (1) whether a 1997 sale deed is binding and legitimate regarding defendant No.9's share; (2) whether defendant No.9 is entitled to the relief sought in their counter-claim; and (3) whether the court has pecuniary jurisdiction, as contended by defendant No.8. The case has been adjourned for trial on these issues. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Senior Civil Judge and CJM of Kodagu-Madikeri framed three additional issues in this civil property dispute on 28.06.2025: (1) whether a 1997 sale deed is binding and legitimate regarding defendant No.9's share; (2) whether defendant No.9 is entitled to the relief sought in their counter-claim; and (3) whether the court has pecuniary jurisdiction, as contended by defendant No.8. The case has been adjourned for trial on these issues. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MADIKERI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case