NIRMALA vs KARIYAPPA — 255/2020

Case under Under Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 Cpc Section UO7R1AND2CPC. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th March 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAMS610015962020

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

257/2020

Filing Date

05-11-2020

Registration No

255/2020

Registration Date

05-11-2020

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PERIYAPATNA

Judge

452-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PIRIYAPATNA

Decision Date

07th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 1 AND 2 CPC Section UO7R1AND2CPC

Petitioner(s)

NIRMALA

Adv. C T NAGARAJU

Respondent(s)

KARIYAPPA

MANJULA

MANJUNATHA

Hearing History

Judge: 452-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PIRIYAPATNA

07-03-2026

Disposed

24-02-2026

JUDGMENTS

19-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

16-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

12-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

07-03-2026
Judgment

Case Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction against the defendants regarding a property dispute. The judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish clear possession of the disputed property or prove the alleged interference by the defendants, as she could not provide documentary evidence establishing the property's exact boundaries and measurements, nor did she produce title documents to support her ownership claims. The defendants, in contrast, presented government grant certificates and revenue records proving their legal rights over the land in question. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

02-02-2023
Issue
28-08-2023
Deposition
19-08-2024
Deposition
27-01-2025
Deposition
12-03-2025
Deposition
12-03-2025
Deposition
29-04-2025
Deposition
29-04-2025
Deposition
28-06-2025
Deposition
12-11-2025
Deposition
02-02-2026
Deposition
02-02-2026
Deposition
06-02-2026
Deposition
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction against the defendants regarding a property dispute. The judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish clear possession of the disputed property or prove the alleged interference by the defendants, as she could not provide documentary evidence establishing the property's exact boundaries and measurements, nor did she produce title documents to support her ownership claims. The defendants, in contrast, presented government grant certificates and revenue records proving their legal rights over the land in question. 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, PERIYAPATNA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case