NEELAJAMMA vs H R SHIVANNA — 138/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O,7,R,1AND2,. Status: For steps. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAMS300008212025
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
137/2025
Filing Date
19-04-2025
Registration No
138/2025
Registration Date
21-04-2025
Court
PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUNSUR
Judge
446-PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNSUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NEELAJAMMA
Adv. M C KARTHIK
Respondent(s)
H R SHIVANNA
RAJU
PREMKUMAR
GAJENDRA
JAYAMMA
MAHESH
S JEEVAN
SUNDARAMMA
H P SHOBHA
RAJESH P
ANAND P
Hearing History
Judge: 446-PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNSUR
For steps
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | For steps | |
| 23-03-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 07-03-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 27-02-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 16-02-2026 | ORDERS |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary OS No. 138/2025 | Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hunsur | 24 March 2026 The court rejected defendants' application to dismiss the plaint filed by Smt. Neelajamma seeking partition of ancestral joint family properties and cancellation of a registered partition deed dated 13.06.2024. The plaintiff claimed she was illiterate and signed the deed without understanding its contents, receiving only 3 guntas instead of an equal 1/5th share. The court found sufficient cause of action exists and the suit is not time-barred, holding that disputed factual issues regarding the plaintiff's knowledge of the deed's contents require a full trial with oral and documentary evidence. IA No. II was rejected with costs of ₹300. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary OS No. 138/2025 | Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hunsur | 24 March 2026 The court rejected defendants' application to dismiss the plaint filed by Smt. Neelajamma seeking partition of ancestral joint family properties and cancellation of a registered partition deed dated 13.06.2024. The plaintiff claimed she was illiterate and signed the deed without understanding its contents, receiving only 3 guntas instead of an equal 1/5th share. The court found sufficient cause of action exists and the suit is not time-barred, holding that disputed factual issues regarding the plaintiff's knowledge of the deed's contents require a full trial with oral and documentary evidence. IA No. II was rejected with costs of ₹300. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts