VASANTHAMMA vs THE TAHASHILDAR — 535/2025
Case under Registration of Births and Deaths Act Section U/SEC.13(3),B,D,ACT. Status: Amended Plaint. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES
CNR: KAMS410029632025
Filing Number
533/2025
Filing Date
06-Dec-2025
Registration No
535/2025
Registration Date
08-Dec-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJANAGARA
Judge
1097-I Addl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Krishnarajanagar
Last updated 09-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.VASANTHAMMA
Adv. S. PRASAD
-
2.NAGARATHANAMMA
-
3.PANKAJA H.K.
-
4.H.K. SHAMBHUDEV
-
5.SHANKAR DEV H.K.
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE TAHASHILDAR
Case History
-
10-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
07-Mar-2026
Amended Plaint
I Addl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Krishnarajanagar
-
28-Feb-2026
Hearing
I Addl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Krishnarajanagar
-
25-Feb-2026
Order
I Addl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Krishnarajanagar
-
19-Feb-2026
ExhibitsView PDF
-
19-Feb-2026
DepositionView PDF
Summary: In Misc Case No. 20/2024, the court heard witness examination on 19.02.2026. The witness testified about the plaintiff's visual impairment and signature practices since 1988-89, and alleged that the first defendant misused the plaintiff's name to create false documents and notices in an attempt to illegally dispossess the plaintiff's property. The court adjourned the cross-examination of the witness as the defendant's counsel had not adequately cooperated, and directed cross-examination to proceed on the next date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
19-Feb-2026
Order
I Addl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Krishnarajanagar
-
03-Feb-2026
Evidence
I Addl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Krishnarajanagar
-
03-Jan-2026
Steps
I Addl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Krishnarajanagar
-
09-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 535/2025
Summary: In Misc Case No. 20/2024, the court heard witness examination on 19.02.2026. The witness testified about the plaintiff's visual impairment and signature practices since 1988-89, and alleged that the first defendant misused the plaintiff's name to create false documents and notices in an attempt to illegally dispossess the plaintiff's property. The court adjourned the cross-examination of the witness as the defendant's counsel had not adequately cooperated, and directed cross-examination to proceed on the next date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts