RATHNAMMA vs VASANTHA — 74/2022
Case under Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 10th July 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAMS200002142022
Next Hearing
10th July 2026
Filing Number
76/2022
Filing Date
18-04-2022
Registration No
74/2022
Registration Date
18-04-2022
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, H D KOTE
Judge
1224-PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, H D KOTE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RATHNAMMA
Adv. SUHAS B.H
SHEELAVATHI
LAKSHMI
REKHA
Respondent(s)
VASANTHA
RASHMITHA.R
SHOBHA
SUSHEELAMMA
LOKESH
NAGAMMA
PRADEEP SUSAINATHAN
Hearing History
Judge: 1224-PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, H D KOTE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
Call On
Refer to LA/Mediation
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 03-06-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 09-04-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 25-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 14-03-2026 | Call On |
| 05-02-2026 | Refer to LA/Mediation |
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 74/2022 This property dispute case involves claims over land parcels in Survey No. 59 and Survey No. 50. The court examined testimony regarding ownership of approximately 7-17 acres, finding that disputed properties are registered in the respondents' names and were registered in 1986-87. The court determined that the petitioners lack legal standing to claim a share in properties not ancestral to their family and that respondents 4 and 5 have already been granted the disputed land in Survey No. 50. The petition was dismissed, holding that petitioners have no right to partition property not belonging to their ancestral estate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 74/2022 This property dispute case involves claims over land parcels in Survey No. 59 and Survey No. 50. The court examined testimony regarding ownership of approximately 7-17 acres, finding that disputed properties are registered in the respondents' names and were registered in 1986-87. The court determined that the petitioners lack legal standing to claim a share in properties not ancestral to their family and that respondents 4 and 5 have already been granted the disputed land in Survey No. 50. The petition was dismissed, holding that petitioners have no right to partition property not belonging to their ancestral estate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts