M. RAMANNA DEAD BY LRS 1(A) M.R. BADRINATH vs CHANNAMMA Advocate - A.P. SHREEDHARA — 61/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O,41,R 1 R/W S,96. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

R.A. - Regular Appeals

CNR: KAMS700013442024

Filing Number

59/2024

Filing Date

25-Oct-2024

Registration No

61/2024

Registration Date

04-Nov-2024

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TIRUMAKUDAL NARSIPURA

Judge

553-Senior CIVIL Judge Tirumakudal Narasipur

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O,41,R 1 R/W S,96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M. RAMANNA DEAD BY LRS 1(A) M.R. BADRINATH

    Adv. BHUVANESH

  2. 2.1(B) M.R. MANJUNATH

  3. 3.2. KARAGANNA DEAD BY LRS 2(A) LOKESHA

  4. 4.2(b) ABHISHEK

  5. 5.2(c) POOJA

  6. 6.2(d) HEMALATHA DEAD BY LRS 2(D)(1A)Y.S. SHEKARA

  7. 7.2(d)(1b)KUM. SNEHA

  8. 8.2(d)(1c) KUM. SANJANA

  9. 9.2(e) JYOTHI

  10. 10.3. SHIVANNA DEAD BY LRS 3(A) JAYAMMA

  11. 11.3(b)KUM.SHEELA

  12. 12.3(c) KUM. SHILPA

  13. 13.3(d) KUM. SHYLAJA

  14. 14.3(e) KANCHANA ALIAS SHILPA

  15. 15.4 PAPANNA

  16. 16.5. KRINEGOWDA

  17. 17.6. THAYAMMA DEAD BY LRS,1(A) RAJU

  18. 18.7.NINGAMMA ALIAS KARAGAMMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.CHANNAMMA Advocate - A.P. SHREEDHARA

  2. 2.SWAMY

    Adv. SRI. A.P.SHREEDHARA

  3. 3.RAMAKRISHNA

  4. 4.KRISHNEGOWDA

  5. 5.A. P. RAVEENDRA

  6. 6.KAMALAMMA

  7. 7.SHIVALINGA

  8. 8.NAGARAJU

  9. 9.RANGEGOWDA

  10. 10.SWAMY

  11. 11.JAYAMMA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    SUMMARY The Senior Civil Judge of T. Narasipura dismissed the plaintiffs' partition suit in a judgment dated 01.04.2026. The court held that all family properties, including the suit properties, were divided in an oral partition in 1957 between the two sons of the original owner (propositus). Since the properties had already been partitioned decades earlier, the plaintiffs—descendants of one son—had no right to claim a share from the defendants—descendants of the other son. The suit seeking partition and separate possession of four properties and accounts of profits was entirely dismissed with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Senior CIVIL Judge Tirumakudal Narasipur

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Judgements

    Senior CIVIL Judge Tirumakudal Narasipur

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Further Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge Tirumakudal Narasipur

  6. 11-Feb-2026

    Further Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge Tirumakudal Narasipur

  7. 03-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge Tirumakudal Narasipur

  8. 28-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge Tirumakudal Narasipur

  9. 13-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge Tirumakudal Narasipur

  10. 16-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge Tirumakudal Narasipur

  11. 24-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge Tirumakudal Narasipur

  12. 03-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge Tirumakudal Narasipur

  13. 01-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge Tirumakudal Narasipur

  14. 07-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge Tirumakudal Narasipur

  15. 07-Apr-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge Tirumakudal Narasipur

  16. 03-Feb-2025

    Objections

    Senior CIVIL Judge Tirumakudal Narasipur

  17. 09-Dec-2024

    Objections

    Senior CIVIL Judge Tirumakudal Narasipur

  18. 04-Nov-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  19. 25-Oct-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 61/2024

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The Senior Civil Judge of T. Narasipura dismissed the plaintiffs' partition suit in a judgment dated 01.04.2026. The court held that all family properties, including the suit properties, were divided in an oral partition in 1957 between the two sons of the original owner (propositus). Since the properties had already been partitioned decades earlier, the plaintiffs—descendants of one son—had no right to claim a share from the defendants—descendants of the other son. The suit seeking partition and separate possession of four properties and accounts of profits was entirely dismissed with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case