NINGARAJU ALIAS NINGARAJEGOWDA vs KALAMMA — 324/2017
Case under U/o 7 Rule of 1 C.p.c. Section 26CPC. Status: JUDGEMENT. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAMS410011262017
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
324/2017
Filing Date
05-06-2017
Registration No
324/2017
Registration Date
06-06-2017
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJANAGARA
Judge
1097-I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KRISHNARAJANAGAR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NINGARAJU ALIAS NINGARAJEGOWDA
Adv. B PRABHUSWAMY
CHANNAKESHAVA
Respondent(s)
KALAMMA
UMESH
VASANTHA
MANGALAMMA
BHAGYAMMA
Hearing History
Judge: 1097-I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KRISHNARAJANAGAR
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 11-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 12-01-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 10-12-2025 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 25-10-2025 | JUDGEMENT |
Interim Orders
Summary This is a Kannada language court order (O.S. No. 324/2017) from K.R. Nagar court dated 17.07.2025 regarding a property partition dispute. The court found that the plaintiff has no legal right to the disputed property because it was partitioned under Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act between the father (deceased 30.03.2017) and mother (deceased 04.12.2024), with the property vesting in their joint names. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, noting that the disputed document (Exhibit 1) was created through undue influence by the deceased father and lacks proper execution formalities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a Kannada language court order (O.S. No. 324/2017) from K.R. Nagar court dated 17.07.2025 regarding a property partition dispute. The court found that the plaintiff has no legal right to the disputed property because it was partitioned under Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act between the father (deceased 30.03.2017) and mother (deceased 04.12.2024), with the property vesting in their joint names. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, noting that the disputed document (Exhibit 1) was created through undue influence by the deceased father and lacks proper execution formalities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts