Sunandamma vs Chikkathayamma — 15/2021

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 43rule1rR/w151. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

M.A. - Miscellanuous Appeals

CNR: KARN210013842021

Filing Number

16/2021

Filing Date

22-Dec-2021

Registration No

15/2021

Registration Date

22-Dec-2021

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA

Judge

1564-Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 43rule1rR/w151

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sunandamma

    Adv. MANJESH KUMAR C

  2. 2.Chandrashekar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Chikkathayamma

  2. 2.Dhananjeya

  3. 3.G S Suresh

  4. 4.G Gangaiah

  5. 5.G Krishna

  6. 6.Yashodamma

  7. 7.Niranjana R

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary: M.A.No.15/2021(J) Court Decision: The appellate court dismissed the defendants' appeal and confirmed the trial court's order granting a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The court found that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of ownership based on documentary evidence including land grant certificates, survey records, and property mutations showing the disputed land was granted to the plaintiffs' ancestor and subsequently inherited through family partition. Key Reasoning: The defendants' claim of possession based solely on physical occupation was rejected as they failed to produce supporting documents. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs' documented evidence—including RTC extracts, partition deeds, and land records—clearly demonstrated their legal right to the property, while defendants had no documentary proof of their claimed rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 27-Feb-2026

    Judgments

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  6. 11-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  7. 28-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  8. 27-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  9. 23-Jun-2025

    Arguments

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  10. 17-Feb-2025

    Arguments

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  11. 27-Nov-2024

    Arguments

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  12. 12-Aug-2024

    Arguments

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  13. 01-Jun-2024

    Arguments

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  14. 29-Jan-2024

    Arguments

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  15. 06-Nov-2023

    Arguments

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  16. 28-Aug-2023

    Arguments

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  17. 05-Jul-2023

    Arguments

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  18. 11-Apr-2023

    Hearing

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  19. 29-Mar-2023

    Hearing

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  20. 18-Jan-2023

    Hearing

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  21. 19-Oct-2022

    Hearing

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  22. 07-Sep-2022

    Hearing

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  23. 27-Jul-2022

    Hearing

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  24. 06-Jun-2022

    Hearing

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  25. 29-Mar-2022

    Arguments

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  26. 28-Feb-2022

    Objection

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  27. 22-Dec-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 22-Dec-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 15/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: M.A.No.15/2021(J) Court Decision: The appellate court dismissed the defendants' appeal and confirmed the trial court's order granting a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The court found that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of ownership based on documentary evidence including land grant certificates, survey records, and property mutations showing the disputed land was granted to the plaintiffs' ancestor and subsequently inherited through family partition. Key Reasoning: The defendants' claim of possession based solely on physical occupation was rejected as they failed to produce supporting documents. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs' documented evidence—including RTC extracts, partition deeds, and land records—clearly demonstrated their legal right to the property, while defendants had no documentary proof of their claimed rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case