KRISHNEGOWDA vs CHINNEGOWDA — 333/2022

Case under U/s 26 and Order Vii Rule 1 of Cpc Section O. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAMS210071132022

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

05th June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

331/2022

Filing Date

24-08-2022

Registration No

333/2022

Registration Date

24-08-2022

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, H.D.KOTE

Judge

1320-II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFCH D KOTE

Acts & Sections

U/S 26 and order VII Rule 1 of CPC Section O

Petitioner(s)

KRISHNEGOWDA

Adv. P.NAGENDRA

NAGAMMA

Respondent(s)

CHINNEGOWDA

LOKESHA

Hearing History

Judge: 1320-II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFCH D KOTE

07-03-2026

EVIDENCE

21-01-2026

EVIDENCE

03-12-2025

EVIDENCE

30-10-2025

EVIDENCE

08-10-2025

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

16-02-2024
Deposition
27-08-2024
Deposition
05-03-2025
Deposition
03-12-2025
Deposition

Summary: In this land dispute case (O.S. No. 333/22), the court examined witness testimony on 03.12.2025 regarding ownership and boundaries of disputed land parcels. The court found that the defendant's claim regarding a canal boundary between the plaintiff's and defendant's land was established, and noted discrepancies in survey records (Survey No. 26 vs. 19) regarding land ownership. The court concluded that the defendant filed a false claim with the intent to wrongfully appropriate 28 guntas of the plaintiff's land that the defendant had obtained through fraudulent means. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In this land dispute case (O.S. No. 333/22), the court examined witness testimony on 03.12.2025 regarding ownership and boundaries of disputed land parcels. The court found that the defendant's claim regarding a canal boundary between the plaintiff's and defendant's land was established, and noted discrepancies in survey records (Survey No. 26 vs. 19) regarding land ownership. The court concluded that the defendant filed a false claim with the intent to wrongfully appropriate 28 guntas of the plaintiff's land that the defendant had obtained through fraudulent means. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, H.D.KOTE All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case