Nagaraju vs Kala Arasaiah G — 75/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7rule1and2. Disposed: Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH on 13th March 2026.

Case disposedSub Stage

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KARN410001022026

Filing Number

75/2026

Filing Date

28-Jan-2026

Registration No

75/2026

Registration Date

28-Jan-2026

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI

Judge

1029-Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 7rule1and2

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Nagaraju

    Adv. T R Jayaramu

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Kala Arasaiah G

  2. 2.Byraiah

  3. 3.Jayamma

  4. 4.Rathnamma

  5. 5.K Arasegowda

  6. 6.Kalaiah M K

  7. 7.Gangamma

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    In OS 75/26, the Senior Civil Judge in Magadi accepted a joint compromise petition filed by petitioner Nagaraju and respondents Kala Arasaiah G, Byraiah, and Jayamma before the Lok Adalath. After verifying the parties' voluntary consent and examining supporting documents (genealogical tree, RTC, Aadhar cards, death certificates), the court found both parties legally entitled to compromise and confirmed the validity of their rights over the scheduled property. The court accepted the lawful compromise, issued a decree accordingly, and directed refund of court fees as per law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 28-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 28-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 75/2026

casestatus.in Summary

In OS 75/26, the Senior Civil Judge in Magadi accepted a joint compromise petition filed by petitioner Nagaraju and respondents Kala Arasaiah G, Byraiah, and Jayamma before the Lok Adalath. After verifying the parties' voluntary consent and examining supporting documents (genealogical tree, RTC, Aadhar cards, death certificates), the court found both parties legally entitled to compromise and confirmed the validity of their rights over the scheduled property. The court accepted the lawful compromise, issued a decree accordingly, and directed refund of court fees as per law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case