APPANNEGOWDA vs RATHNAMMA — 225/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7RULE1. Status: Summons. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAMS610011302025
Filing Number
219/2025
Filing Date
09-Jun-2025
Registration No
225/2025
Registration Date
11-Jun-2025
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PERIYAPATNA
Judge
452-Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Piriyapatna
Last updated 10-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.APPANNEGOWDA
Adv. K BHASKARA
Respondent(s)
-
1.RATHNAMMA
-
2.MADEGOWDA
-
3.VARADARAJU K K
-
4.HARAVEGOWDA
-
5.APPANNAGOWDA
-
6.RAMA @ RAMACHANDRA K C
-
7.CHIKKANNANAYAKA
Case History
-
18-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Apr-2026
Summons
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Piriyapatna
-
07-Mar-2026
Steps
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Piriyapatna
-
17-Feb-2026
DepositionView PDF
Summary Case: OS 225/2022, PW-1 (Civil suit regarding property dispute) Outcome: The court examined witness testimony regarding a settlement deed dated 18.06.2018 concerning land property (survey numbers 89/1 and 89/5). The court found discrepancies between the settlement terms and survey records, and noted that the plaintiff gave false testimony regarding land allocation and ownership rights. The case involved disputed land boundaries and the court's analysis of conflicting survey numbers and property descriptions presented by the parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Feb-2026
Summons
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Piriyapatna
-
21-Jan-2026
Steps
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Piriyapatna
-
20-Nov-2025
Summons
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Piriyapatna
-
17-Oct-2025
Summons
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Piriyapatna
-
30-Aug-2025
Summons
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Piriyapatna
-
11-Jul-2025
Summons
Prl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Piriyapatna
-
11-Jun-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Jun-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 225/2025
Summary Case: OS 225/2022, PW-1 (Civil suit regarding property dispute) Outcome: The court examined witness testimony regarding a settlement deed dated 18.06.2018 concerning land property (survey numbers 89/1 and 89/5). The court found discrepancies between the settlement terms and survey records, and noted that the plaintiff gave false testimony regarding land allocation and ownership rights. The case involved disputed land boundaries and the court's analysis of conflicting survey numbers and property descriptions presented by the parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts