Puttasomachari vs Kalamma Advocate - S.SHIVANNE GOWDA — 367/2015
Case under Under Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc Section -. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 24th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAMS310004572015
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Date
26-08-2015
Registration No
367/2015
Registration Date
26-08-2015
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUNSUR
Judge
447-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNSUR
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Puttasomachari
Adv. Manjunatha
Respondent(s)
Kalamma Advocate - S.SHIVANNE GOWDA
Ningachari
Somashekarachari
Kempalingachari(Legal Heir)
Hearing History
Judge: 447-PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNSUR
Disposed
JUDGEMENTS
ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 13-03-2026 | JUDGEMENTS | |
| 07-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 06-02-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 09-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral joint family properties. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the properties were jointly owned ancestral assets or that he held any share in them, as he did not submit to cross-examination and provided insufficient evidence. Additionally, the defendants failed to present any counter-evidence, but this did not assist the plaintiff's weak case. The 1992 sale deed to defendant No. 4 was upheld as valid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral joint family properties. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the properties were jointly owned ancestral assets or that he held any share in them, as he did not submit to cross-examination and provided insufficient evidence. Additionally, the defendants failed to present any counter-evidence, but this did not assist the plaintiff's weak case. The 1992 sale deed to defendant No. 4 was upheld as valid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts