R.MOHAMMED ASLAM vs GOWRAMMA — 12/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/S 96,R/W O 41,R 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 26th March 2026.

Case disposed

R.A. - Regular Appeals

CNR: KAMS010002692025

Filing Number

7/2025

Filing Date

10-Jan-2025

Registration No

12/2025

Registration Date

13-Jan-2025

Court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU

Judge

429-IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

Decision Date

26-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U/S 96,R/W O 41,R 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.R.MOHAMMED ASLAM

    Adv. A.S.NATARAJ

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GOWRAMMA

  2. 2.LEKAMMA

  3. 3.CHANDRAMMA

  4. 4.SAKKAMMA

  5. 5.D.CHIKKANNA(Legal Heir)

  6. 6.D.MARISWAMY

  7. 7.D.PRAKASH

  8. 8.AMANULLA SHARIFF

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-Mar-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: R.A./12/2025 Court: IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru Date: 26th March 2026 Appellant: R. Mohammed Aslam (Defendant No. 6 in original suit) Respondents: Gowramma, Lekamma, Chandramma (original Plaintiffs) Court's Decision The appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the three plaintiffs are entitled to their 1/7th share each in the ancestral property. The court found that the 2006 sale deed executed through a power of attorney was not binding on the daughters as they were not signatories and did not consent to the sale. The court applied the Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005, which grants daughters equal coparcenary rights to ancestral property like sons, and rejected the appellant's claims regarding family necessity and limitation defenses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  5. 03-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  6. 17-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  7. 10-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  8. 03-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  9. 22-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  10. 06-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  11. 16-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  12. 02-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  13. 19-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  14. 24-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  15. 08-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  16. 12-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  17. 12-Aug-2025

    Appearance Of Party

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  18. 16-Jul-2025

    Steps

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  19. 27-Jun-2025

    Notice To Resp By Rpad

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  20. 17-Jun-2025

    Steps

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  21. 06-Jun-2025

    Steps

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  22. 19-Apr-2025

    Steps

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  23. 18-Mar-2025

    Issue notice to Respondent

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  24. 22-Feb-2025

    Steps

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  25. 14-Feb-2025

    Steps

    IV Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  26. 15-Jan-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 10-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 12/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.A./12/2025 Court: IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru Date: 26th March 2026 Appellant: R. Mohammed Aslam (Defendant No. 6 in original suit) Respondents: Gowramma, Lekamma, Chandramma (original Plaintiffs) Court's Decision The appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the three plaintiffs are entitled to their 1/7th share each in the ancestral property. The court found that the 2006 sale deed executed through a power of attorney was not binding on the daughters as they were not signatories and did not consent to the sale. The court applied the Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005, which grants daughters equal coparcenary rights to ancestral property like sons, and rejected the appellant's claims regarding family necessity and limitation defenses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case