JAYANNA vs SOMANNA — 47/2020
Case under U/s 26 and Order Vii Rule 1 of Cpc Section O. Disposed: Uncontested--DECREED on 02nd April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAMS210001702020
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
48/2020
Filing Date
10-02-2020
Registration No
47/2020
Registration Date
11-02-2020
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, H.D.KOTE
Judge
445-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC H D KOTE
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JAYANNA
Adv. UMESHA
Respondent(s)
SOMANNA
MEENAKSHI
NANDINI ALIAS CHINTU
RASHMI
Hearing History
Judge: 445-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC H D KOTE
Disposed
JUDGEMENTS
JUDGEMENTS
JUDGEMENTS
JUDGEMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 18-03-2026 | JUDGEMENTS | |
| 07-03-2026 | JUDGEMENTS | |
| 28-02-2026 | JUDGEMENTS | |
| 20-02-2026 | JUDGEMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Principal Civil Judge at H.D.Kote granted the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction on April 2, 2026. The court found that the plaintiff had established peaceful possession of 5 acres of agricultural land (Sy.No.6/1) acquired through partition with property records changed in his name in 2006-07, supported by RTC extracts, mutation registers, and tax payment receipts. Since the defendants failed to file a written statement or contest the plaintiff's evidence, the court drew adverse inferences and decreed the suit, restraining the defendants and their representatives from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Principal Civil Judge at H.D.Kote granted the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction on April 2, 2026. The court found that the plaintiff had established peaceful possession of 5 acres of agricultural land (Sy.No.6/1) acquired through partition with property records changed in his name in 2006-07, supported by RTC extracts, mutation registers, and tax payment receipts. Since the defendants failed to file a written statement or contest the plaintiff's evidence, the court drew adverse inferences and decreed the suit, restraining the defendants and their representatives from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts