KAMALAMMA vs GOWRAMMA Advocate - P. DAYANAND — 4/2014
Case under U/o 7 Rule of 1 C.p.c. Section 0. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 09th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAMS410000262014
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
4/2014
Filing Date
01-01-2014
Registration No
4/2014
Registration Date
01-01-2014
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJANAGARA
Judge
1097-I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KRISHNARAJANAGAR
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KAMALAMMA
Adv. RUDRAMURTHY
THOLASAMMA
SHOBHA
Respondent(s)
GOWRAMMA Advocate - P. DAYANAND
B.M.NAGARAJEGOWDA
Adv. P. DAYANAND
SATHISHA
Adv. P. DAYANAND
DAKSHAYINI
KARIGOWDA
DODDASIDDEGOWDA
Adv. P. DAYANAND
SIDDEGOWDA
Adv. P. DAYANAND
CHANDREGOWD
SANNA NINGAMMA(Legal Heir)
Hearing History
Judge: 1097-I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KRISHNARAJANAGAR
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 06-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 28-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 16-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
Interim Orders
The court decided that the plaintiff's claims regarding equal share in certain properties (Schedules C, D, and H) are partly upheld. The court found that Defendant 6 illegally registered properties that should have been equally divided among all heirs, and that documents related to Schedule C property were obtained through false claims. The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to equal shares in the ancestral properties as per inheritance law, while finding some of the defendant's registrations invalid and against the principles of equitable distribution among legal heirs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court decided that the plaintiff's claims regarding equal share in certain properties (Schedules C, D, and H) are partly upheld. The court found that Defendant 6 illegally registered properties that should have been equally divided among all heirs, and that documents related to Schedule C property were obtained through false claims. The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to equal shares in the ancestral properties as per inheritance law, while finding some of the defendant's registrations invalid and against the principles of equitable distribution among legal heirs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts