Sri. Kademada K. Kariappa vs Kademada A. Poovaiah Advocate - Bopanna K P — 29/2017
Case under - Section US26O7R1. Status: HEARING Civil. Next hearing: 18th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAKD300000542017
Next Hearing
18th March 2026
Filing Number
29/2017
Filing Date
26-04-2017
Registration No
29/2017
Registration Date
26-04-2017
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, PONNAMPET
Judge
1012-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PONNAMPET
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sri. Kademada K. Kariappa
Adv. Madaiah N P
K.K. Ravi Kumar
Adv. Madaiah N P
K.K. Subramani
Adv. Madaiah N P
K.S. Ponnappa
Adv. Madaiah N P
K.P. Uthappa
Adv. Madaiah N P
K.G. Monappa
Adv. Madaiah N P
K.G. Machaiah
Adv. Madaiah N P
Smt. Janakki K.N.
Adv. Madaiah N P
Respondent(s)
Kademada A. Poovaiah Advocate - Bopanna K P
Hearing History
Judge: 1012-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PONNAMPET
HEARING Civil
AMENDMENT
HEARING Civil
HEARING Civil
HEARING Civil
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | HEARING Civil |
| 06-03-2026 | AMENDMENT |
| 03-02-2026 | HEARING Civil |
| 19-12-2025 | HEARING Civil |
| 14-10-2025 | HEARING Civil |
Interim Orders
Summary: In O.S.29-2017, decided on March 13, 2024, the court examined disputed property rights related to Survey No. 18. The court found that the plaintiff's claims regarding ownership and right of way over certain portions (2-acre width passages and 10-acre passages) were not adequately supported by documentary evidence. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish exclusive rights to the disputed passages and dismissed the petition, finding insufficient proof of the claimed "Right of Way" over the property in question. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In O.S.29-2017, decided on March 13, 2024, the court examined disputed property rights related to Survey No. 18. The court found that the plaintiff's claims regarding ownership and right of way over certain portions (2-acre width passages and 10-acre passages) were not adequately supported by documentary evidence. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish exclusive rights to the disputed passages and dismissed the petition, finding insufficient proof of the claimed "Right of Way" over the property in question. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts