RUKKANAMMA vs BOREGOWDA Advocate - B.N.HARISH — 287/2020

Case under U/o 7 Rule I of C.p.c Section UO7R1OFCPC. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 21st April 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAMS610018292020

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

21st April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

288/2020

Filing Date

09-12-2020

Registration No

287/2020

Registration Date

09-12-2020

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PERIYAPATNA

Judge

452-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PIRIYAPATNA

Acts & Sections

U/O 7 RULE I OF C.P.C Section UO7R1OFCPC

Petitioner(s)

RUKKANAMMA

Adv. S M PURUSHOTHAMA

Respondent(s)

BOREGOWDA Advocate - B.N.HARISH

SHIVANNEGOWDA

Adv. B.N.HARISH

SANNATHAYAMMA

Adv. B.N.HARISH

RATNAMMA

Adv. B.N.HARISH

DEELIP

Adv. B.N.HARISH

SHIVAMMA

Adv. B.N.HARISH

RAGHU

Adv. B.N.HARISH

CHITRA

Adv. B.N.HARISH

Hearing History

Judge: 452-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PIRIYAPATNA

27-03-2026

EVIDENCE

16-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

07-03-2026

EVIDENCE

28-02-2026

EVIDENCE

23-02-2026

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

21-03-2023
Deposition
11-01-2022
Issue
08-08-2023
Deposition
22-01-2025
Deposition
24-09-2025
Deposition
16-10-2025
Deposition
16-10-2025
Deposition
12-11-2025
Deposition
21-01-2026
Deposition
06-02-2026
Deposition
16-03-2026
Deposition

Summary In civil suit OS 287/2020, the court examined disputed land ownership claims involving multiple parties. The court found that the plaintiff has established ownership of 2 acres of land through credible evidence and testimony, while rejecting the defendants' testimony as false and unreliable. The case proceeded with witness examination on 16.03.2026, and the court's findings favored the plaintiff's claim to the disputed property based on the established facts and boundary descriptions presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary In civil suit OS 287/2020, the court examined disputed land ownership claims involving multiple parties. The court found that the plaintiff has established ownership of 2 acres of land through credible evidence and testimony, while rejecting the defendants' testimony as false and unreliable. The case proceeded with witness examination on 16.03.2026, and the court's findings favored the plaintiff's claim to the disputed property based on the established facts and boundary descriptions presented. 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