Chinnamma vs Murthi — 49/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDER26,RULE7,1,2CPC. Status: DEFENDANT EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAKD200016592022
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
49/2022
Filing Date
12-07-2022
Registration No
49/2022
Registration Date
13-07-2022
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUSHALNAGAR
Judge
866-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUSHALNAGAR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Chinnamma
Adv. Mohan Kumar H C
Respondent(s)
Murthi
Lalitha
Anusuya
Roopa
Chennaraju
Raju
Vasudeva
Hearing History
Judge: 866-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUSHALNAGAR
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
CALLING
CALLING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 20-02-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 09-02-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 24-01-2026 | CALLING |
| 06-01-2026 | CALLING |
Interim Orders
Summary This is a witness examination transcript (O.S. No. 49-2022, DW-1) dated 06.03.2026 from a Karnataka court proceeding in Kannada language. The document records the testimony of a witness regarding a property dispute involving multiple defendants (5-7), focusing on family relationships, land ownership claims (Survey Nos. 51, 52, and 6), and agricultural cultivation rights. The witness testified about genealogical connections and denied having documentary evidence to support certain relationship claims, ultimately confirming that the disputed property belongs solely to Defendants 1 and 5-7, with no rights extended to the plaintiff or other claimants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a witness examination transcript (O.S. No. 49-2022, DW-1) dated 06.03.2026 from a Karnataka court proceeding in Kannada language. The document records the testimony of a witness regarding a property dispute involving multiple defendants (5-7), focusing on family relationships, land ownership claims (Survey Nos. 51, 52, and 6), and agricultural cultivation rights. The witness testified about genealogical connections and denied having documentary evidence to support certain relationship claims, ultimately confirming that the disputed property belongs solely to Defendants 1 and 5-7, with no rights extended to the plaintiff or other claimants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts