G.M.SURESHA vs PRAKASHA — 417/2022

Case under U/s 26 and Order Vii Rule 1 of Cpc Section O. Status: JUDGEMENTS. Next hearing: 15th April 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAMS210074182022

JUDGEMENTS

Next Hearing

15th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

410/2022

Filing Date

18-10-2022

Registration No

417/2022

Registration Date

21-10-2022

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)

G.M.SURESHA

Adv. G.N.NARAYANA GOWDA

Respondent(s)

PRAKASHA

SUNDRAMMA

JAYAKUMAR

NAVEEN KUMAR

Hearing History

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

26-03-2026

JUDGEMENTS

07-03-2026

JUDGEMENTS

27-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

18-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

10-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

Interim Orders

30-03-2023
Deposition
11-07-2024
Deposition
30-07-2024
Deposition
05-11-2024
Deposition
27-11-2024
Deposition
09-12-2024
Deposition
14-02-2025
Deposition
24-09-2025
Deposition

The document is in Kannada language. Based on the court order dated 24.09.2025 in case O.S. No. 417/22, the court examined evidence regarding a land dispute involving division of property between plaintiffs and defendants concerning agricultural land in survey numbers 45/4 and 45. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims regarding continuous possession and cultivation for 15 years were false and unsupported by documentary evidence, and that the defendants had valid ownership rights to their respective portions of the land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The document is in Kannada language. Based on the court order dated 24.09.2025 in case O.S. No. 417/22, the court examined evidence regarding a land dispute involving division of property between plaintiffs and defendants concerning agricultural land in survey numbers 45/4 and 45. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims regarding continuous possession and cultivation for 15 years were false and unsupported by documentary evidence, and that the defendants had valid ownership rights to their respective portions of the land. 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