RAMANAYAKA vs SIDDALINGANAYAKA Advocate - B. V. JAVAREGOWDA — 316/2014
Case under Order 7 R 1 and 2 Cpc Section UNDERORDER7RULE1CPC.,. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 01st April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAMS610025562014
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
322/2014
Filing Date
10-10-2014
Registration No
316/2014
Registration Date
13-10-2014
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PERIYAPATNA
Judge
1319-I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PIRIYAPATNA
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAMANAYAKA
Adv. I R SRINIVASA
CHIKKAMMA
Adv. I R SRINIVASA
Respondent(s)
SIDDALINGANAYAKA Advocate - B. V. JAVAREGOWDA
SHIVALINGAIAH(Legal Heir)
Adv. B. V. JAVAREGOWDA
Hearing History
Judge: 1319-I ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PIRIYAPATNA
Disposed
JUDGMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 24-03-2026 | JUDGMENTS | |
| 17-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 07-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 05-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The court granted permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession of two properties: a government-granted agricultural land (Survey No. 30/P91) and a residential structure acquired through oral partition. The court found that the plaintiffs established clear possession through government grant documents, land records, and tax receipts, while the defendants' counter-claims lacked substantiation and were contradicted by their own witness admissions during cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The court granted permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession of two properties: a government-granted agricultural land (Survey No. 30/P91) and a residential structure acquired through oral partition. The court found that the plaintiffs established clear possession through government grant documents, land records, and tax receipts, while the defendants' counter-claims lacked substantiation and were contradicted by their own witness admissions during cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts