MANJULA vs NAGARAJU — 43/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/S 26 AND ORDER 7 RULE 1. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 07th March 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAMS710003572022

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

43/2022

Filing Date

11-02-2022

Registration No

43/2022

Registration Date

11-02-2022

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIRUMAKUDAL NARSIPURA

Judge

451-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC TIRUMAKUDAL NARSIPUR

Decision Date

07th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DECREED

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section U/S 26 AND ORDER 7 RULE 1

Petitioner(s)

MANJULA

Adv. MAHESHA

ASHA RANI

USHA RANI

ANUSHA RANI

Respondent(s)

NAGARAJU

NATARAJU

MAHESHA

ANANDA

MAHESHA

Hearing History

Judge: 451-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC TIRUMAKUDAL NARSIPUR

07-03-2026

Disposed

25-02-2026

JUDGEMENTS

21-02-2026

JUDGEMENTS

18-02-2026

JUDGEMENTS

16-02-2026

JUDGEMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

07-03-2026
Judgment

Summary The court declared that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of a 0.03 guntas property (Sy.No.193/8) at Kannahalli village, based on a registered sale deed from 1999 to the plaintiff's late husband, which passed to them as legal heirs. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession, rejecting the defendants' contention that the property does not exist, as documentary evidence clearly established its existence and the plaintiffs' ownership. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

23-06-2022
Deposition
03-08-2022
Deposition
22-11-2022
Issue
23-02-2023
Deposition
07-07-2023
Deposition
19-08-2023
Deposition
03-11-2023
Deposition
20-01-2024
Deposition
03-11-2025
Deposition
casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court declared that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of a 0.03 guntas property (Sy.No.193/8) at Kannahalli village, based on a registered sale deed from 1999 to the plaintiff's late husband, which passed to them as legal heirs. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession, rejecting the defendants' contention that the property does not exist, as documentary evidence clearly established its existence and the plaintiffs' ownership. 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

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIRUMAKUDAL NARSIPURA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case