MAHADEVASWAMY. N vs THE THAHASILDHAR — 370/2026

Case under Registration of Births and Deaths Act Section 13(3B). Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES

CNR: KAMS510007532026

Filing Number

280/2026

Filing Date

09-Feb-2026

Registration No

370/2026

Registration Date

11-Feb-2026

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD

Judge

449-Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING

Last updated 08-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Registration of Births and Deaths Act Section 13(3B)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MAHADEVASWAMY. N

    Adv. H N MALLESHAIAH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE THAHASILDHAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    DepositionView PDF

    The court admitted evidence from the witness Mahadevaswami (age 38, a factory worker) on 17.03.2026, including documents establishing that the defendant Nanjundaiah died on 03.02.1994, supported by newspaper publication notices and Aadhar card copies. The court granted the petitioner's request for relief as sought in the petition, noting that the defendant did not contest the case and therefore no cross-examination arguments were needed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Notice To Respondent

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  6. 11-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 09-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 370/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court admitted evidence from the witness Mahadevaswami (age 38, a factory worker) on 17.03.2026, including documents establishing that the defendant Nanjundaiah died on 03.02.1994, supported by newspaper publication notices and Aadhar card copies. The court granted the petitioner's request for relief as sought in the petition, noting that the defendant did not contest the case and therefore no cross-examination arguments were needed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case