Shylaja K M vs Ramanna — 240/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7rule1and2. Status: TO CALL ON. Next hearing: 30th June 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KARN410003492025

TO CALL ON

Next Hearing

30th June 2026

Filing Number

240/2025

Filing Date

07-04-2025

Registration No

240/2025

Registration Date

07-04-2025

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI

Judge

1253-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 7rule1and2

Petitioner(s)

Shylaja K M

Adv. Maheshwari D M

Kishore G

Kavya G

Respondent(s)

Ramanna

Kemparangamma

Hearing History

Judge: 1253-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC

24-04-2026

TO CALL ON

23-04-2026

ORDERS

15-04-2026

TO HEAR ON

07-04-2026

TO HEAR ON

13-03-2026

TO HEAR ON

Interim Orders

24-04-2026
Orders

Case Summary: O.S.No.240/2025 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. The Additional Senior Civil Judge found that plaintiffs (Shylaja K M, Kishore G, and Kavya G) failed to establish a prima-facie case for injunction relief against defendants (Ramanna and Kemparangamma) in their partition suit concerning joint family properties. While RTC records showed items 1-6 registered jointly, the court determined that full trial was necessary to adjudicate rights and that defendants could not unilaterally alienate jointly-held property, thereby negating the urgency for interim relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: O.S.No.240/2025 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. The Additional Senior Civil Judge found that plaintiffs (Shylaja K M, Kishore G, and Kavya G) failed to establish a prima-facie case for injunction relief against defendants (Ramanna and Kemparangamma) in their partition suit concerning joint family properties. While RTC records showed items 1-6 registered jointly, the court determined that full trial was necessary to adjudicate rights and that defendants could not unilaterally alienate jointly-held property, thereby negating the urgency for interim relief. 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

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case