CHAYA S.N vs SARASWATHI AND OTHERS — 4/2019

Case under U/o 7 Rule of 1 C.p.c. Section UO7R1CPC. Status: JUDGMENTS. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAMS400000992019

JUDGMENTS

Next Hearing

24th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

4/2019

Filing Date

30-01-2019

Registration No

4/2019

Registration Date

01-02-2019

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJANAGARA

Judge

922-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KRISHNARAJANAGAR

Acts & Sections

U/O 7 RULE OF 1 C.P.C. Section UO7R1CPC

Petitioner(s)

CHAYA S.N

Adv. PALAKSHA

Respondent(s)

SARASWATHI AND OTHERS

M T VENKATESH

M V JEEVITHA

Hearing History

Judge: 922-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KRISHNARAJANAGAR

02-04-2026

JUDGMENTS

07-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

19-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

10-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

28-01-2026

ARGUMENTS

Interim Orders

20-09-2019
Deposition
23-01-2020
Orders
10-02-2020
Orders
04-03-2020
Deposition
25-01-2021
Deposition
12-02-2021
Deposition
23-04-2021
Judgment
23-04-2021
Decree
23-06-2025
Deposition
23-06-2025
Deposition
06-08-2025
Deposition
19-08-2025
Deposition
16-09-2025
Deposition
24-10-2025
Deposition
10-11-2025
Deposition
25-11-2025
Deposition
01-12-2025
Deposition
05-01-2026
Deposition

The witness was examined on 05-01-2026 in OS No. 04/2019. The defendant's counsel challenged the plaintiff's case, claiming the defendant was a minor (17 years old) when allegedly signing an agreement, and that the defendant's signatures and mother's signatures cannot be verified. The court found the defendant's testimony regarding an agreement dated 05.08.2016 and property details credible, though noted the defendant claimed false evidence was being presented to transfer disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The witness was examined on 05-01-2026 in OS No. 04/2019. The defendant's counsel challenged the plaintiff's case, claiming the defendant was a minor (17 years old) when allegedly signing an agreement, and that the defendant's signatures and mother's signatures cannot be verified. The court found the defendant's testimony regarding an agreement dated 05.08.2016 and property details credible, though noted the defendant claimed false evidence was being presented to transfer disputed property. 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

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJANAGARA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case