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
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
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
TO CALL ON
ORDERS
TO HEAR ON
TO HEAR ON
TO HEAR ON
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts