S.Parvathi vs Puttaswamy — 34/2013
Case under Order 41 Rule 1 of Cpc Section ---. Status: ARGUMENTS.. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
R.A. - Regular Appeals
CNR: KARN010007372013
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
Filing Number
34/2013
Filing Date
27-04-2013
Registration No
34/2013
Registration Date
27-04-2013
Court
PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA
Judge
1020-III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S.Parvathi
Adv. K.V.Mohan Kumar
Respondent(s)
Puttaswamy
N.L.Shamanthamani
S.Ambika
S.Sharada
K.S.Lakshmi
S.Sudheendra
Hearing History
Judge: 1020-III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
ARGUMENTS.
ARGUMENTS.
ARGUMENTS.
ARGUMENTS.
ARGUMENTS.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-04-2026 | ARGUMENTS. |
| 04-04-2026 | ARGUMENTS. |
| 13-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS. |
| 18-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS. |
| 13-01-2026 | ARGUMENTS. |
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 34/2013 Outcome: The appeals (R.A.25/2013 and R.A.34/2013) were disposed of by setting aside the trial court's judgment and decree dated 01-03-2013. The case was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal after framing additional issues, particularly regarding Section 4 of the Partition Act and pre-emption rights. Key Findings: The appellate court found that while the plaintiff failed to prove an actual partition of the "A" schedule property between Yashodamma and her son Srinivasa Murthy, the plaintiff had successfully proven purchase of the "B" schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 20-12-2004. The trial court's judgment was deemed erroneous for failing to frame proper issues and provide adequate findings on critical points, particularly regarding pre-emption rights and valuation procedures under partition law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 34/2013 Outcome: The appeals (R.A.25/2013 and R.A.34/2013) were disposed of by setting aside the trial court's judgment and decree dated 01-03-2013. The case was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal after framing additional issues, particularly regarding Section 4 of the Partition Act and pre-emption rights. Key Findings: The appellate court found that while the plaintiff failed to prove an actual partition of the "A" schedule property between Yashodamma and her son Srinivasa Murthy, the plaintiff had successfully proven purchase of the "B" schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 20-12-2004. The trial court's judgment was deemed erroneous for failing to frame proper issues and provide adequate findings on critical points, particularly regarding pre-emption rights and valuation procedures under partition law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts