Ningamma vs Bhagyamma Advocate - C.R SHIVARAJ — 403/2021
Case under U/o Section 6rule1ofcpc. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 21st July 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KARN020010062021
Next Hearing
21st July 2026
Filing Number
401/2021
Filing Date
15-11-2021
Registration No
403/2021
Registration Date
15-11-2021
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA
Judge
105-PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ningamma
Adv. SHASHIDARA.P
Srinivas
Respondent(s)
Bhagyamma Advocate - C.R SHIVARAJ
Chandraiah
Adv. C.R SHIVARAJ
Srinivas
Adv. C.R SHIVARAJ
Venkataraja
Adv. C.R SHIVARAJ
Ramakrishnaiah
Adv. C.R SHIVARAJ
Thimmaraja
Adv. C.R SHIVARAJ
Gowramma
Adv. C.R SHIVARAJ
Sadappa
Adv. C.R SHIVARAJ
Puttaswamaih
Adv. C.R SHIVARAJ
Pavana
Kavana
The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Adv. T.K.MADHU MURTHY
Hearing History
Judge: 105-PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM
EVIDENCE
ORDERS
To Hear
To Hear
To Hear
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-04-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 04-04-2026 | ORDERS |
| 28-03-2026 | To Hear |
| 13-03-2026 | To Hear |
| 25-02-2026 | To Hear |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. 403/2021 Outcome: Defendant No.13's application to reject the plaint for want of cause of action under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC was dismissed without costs on 25.04.2026. Key Points: The court held that the plaint clearly disclosed a valid cause of action for partition and separate possession of agricultural properties claimed as joint family property. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the plaint was concocted and lacked merit, finding that on meaningful reading, the plaintiffs adequately averred facts establishing their right to sue. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: O.S. 403/2021 Outcome: Defendant No.13's application to reject the plaint for want of cause of action under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC was dismissed without costs on 25.04.2026. Key Points: The court held that the plaint clearly disclosed a valid cause of action for partition and separate possession of agricultural properties claimed as joint family property. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the plaint was concocted and lacked merit, finding that on meaningful reading, the plaintiffs adequately averred facts establishing their right to sue. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts