Ramaswamy.K.R. vs Sujatha Advocate - H.P.Lakshman — 384/2012

Case under Under Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc Section -. Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 16th April 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAMS310000502012

ARGUMENTS

Next Hearing

16th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Date

05-10-2012

Registration No

384/2012

Registration Date

05-10-2012

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUNSUR

Judge

447-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNSUR

Acts & Sections

UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 1 of CPC Section -

Petitioner(s)

Ramaswamy.K.R.

Adv. C.S.Sridhar

Shivanna

Respondent(s)

Sujatha Advocate - H.P.Lakshman

Hearing History

Judge: 447-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNSUR

09-04-2026

ARGUMENTS

25-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

07-03-2026

EVIDENCE

21-02-2026

EVIDENCE

05-02-2026

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

08-09-2017
Deposition
31-01-2022
Judgment
31-01-2022
Decree
29-06-2024
Deposition
06-07-2024
Deposition
17-10-2025
Deposition
14-11-2025
Deposition
21-02-2026
Deposition
25-03-2026
Deposition

Summary In O.S. 384/2012, the court examined a land dispute involving Survey Number 68 and related documents. The plaintiff's testimony regarding the 1957 land grant to his uncle (Kalegowda) and subsequent ownership claims was found to lack supporting documentary evidence presented to the court. The court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish legal ownership or rights over the disputed property, and dismissed the claims based on insufficient proof and contradictions in the testimony regarding land records and tax payments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary In O.S. 384/2012, the court examined a land dispute involving Survey Number 68 and related documents. The plaintiff's testimony regarding the 1957 land grant to his uncle (Kalegowda) and subsequent ownership claims was found to lack supporting documentary evidence presented to the court. The court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish legal ownership or rights over the disputed property, and dismissed the claims based on insufficient proof and contradictions in the testimony regarding land records and tax payments. 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 COURT, HUNSUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case