SMT. KEMPAMMA vs CHELUVAIAH — 179/2014
Case under Order 20 Rule12 2 of Cpc Section -. Status: NOTICE. Next hearing: 30th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAMS080004232014
Next Hearing
30th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
179/2014
Filing Date
17-06-2014
Registration No
179/2014
Registration Date
17-06-2014
Court
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU
Judge
859-JUDGE ADDL SMALL CAUSES COURT MYSURU
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SMT. KEMPAMMA
Adv. RAMAKRISHNA
Respondent(s)
CHELUVAIAH
SMT. SIDDAMMA
MANJULA
SUMITHRA
MANJU
KUMARI LACHI
SWAMY(Legal Heir)
JAYALAKSHMI
M/S BOOMIKA HOUSING CORPORATION
B.T. BHASKAR
C. VENKATESHA
VINSENT PINTO
DEVAMMA(Legal Heir)
SANNAHUCCHI(Legal Heir)
Hearing History
Judge: 859-JUDGE ADDL SMALL CAUSES COURT MYSURU
NOTICE
NOTICE
NOTICE
NOTICE
NOTICE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 28-03-2026 | NOTICE | |
| 07-03-2026 | NOTICE | |
| 21-02-2026 | NOTICE | |
| 30-01-2026 | NOTICE | |
| 03-01-2026 | NOTICE |
Interim Orders
Summary In this property partition case (OS 179/2014), the court ruled that the disputed properties are ancestral/paternal assets belonging to a joint family. The court allowed the plaintiff's petition and ordered partition of the property, directing that the plaintiff's share be separated and allotted accordingly. The court rejected the defendants' claims and found that the plaintiff is entitled to a partition share in the ancestral properties, dismissing arguments that the property had been separately partitioned earlier. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In this property partition case (OS 179/2014), the court ruled that the disputed properties are ancestral/paternal assets belonging to a joint family. The court allowed the plaintiff's petition and ordered partition of the property, directing that the plaintiff's share be separated and allotted accordingly. The court rejected the defendants' claims and found that the plaintiff is entitled to a partition share in the ancestral properties, dismissing arguments that the property had been separately partitioned earlier. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts