M.MADAIAH ALIAS MUDDUMADAIAH vs MADAMMA — 223/2018

Case under Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc Section 1. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 23rd April 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAMS510015632018

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

23rd April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

224/2018

Filing Date

16-04-2018

Registration No

223/2018

Registration Date

17-04-2018

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD

Judge

1098-II ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NANJANGUD

Acts & Sections

order 7 rule 1 of CPC Section 1

Petitioner(s)

M.MADAIAH ALIAS MUDDUMADAIAH

Adv. BASAVARAJU. C.L.

Respondent(s)

MADAMMA

RAJAMMA

CHIKKA MADAIAH ALIAS KILADI

MAHADEVAIAH ALIAS SHETTY

MAHADEVASWAMY

PUTTAMADAIAH

Hearing History

Judge: 1098-II ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NANJANGUD

07-03-2026

EVIDENCE

19-02-2026

EVIDENCE

13-01-2026

EVIDENCE

11-12-2025

EVIDENCE

30-10-2025

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

13-08-2020
Issue
28-10-2022
Deposition
13-01-2023
Deposition
28-07-2023
Deposition
05-10-2023
Deposition
09-02-2024
Deposition
05-07-2024
Deposition
30-10-2025
Deposition

Summary: This is a civil suit (O.S. No. 223/2018) before the 2nd Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate's Court, Nanjangud, involving a property partition dispute among five siblings. The witness testified regarding the division of ancestral property and confirmed that each sibling received approximately 20 acres of land, which they cultivate separately and maintain individual households. The court recorded the witness examination, and the case was adjourned to allow the plaintiff's counsel time for further cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: This is a civil suit (O.S. No. 223/2018) before the 2nd Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate's Court, Nanjangud, involving a property partition dispute among five siblings. The witness testified regarding the division of ancestral property and confirmed that each sibling received approximately 20 acres of land, which they cultivate separately and maintain individual households. The court recorded the witness examination, and the case was adjourned to allow the plaintiff's counsel time for further cross-examination. 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

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case