Muniyappa vs Doddarangaiah — 2/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 20Rule18ofCPC. Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
FDP - Petitioner For Final Decree pr
CNR: KARN410003762015
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
Filing Number
2/2015
Filing Date
15-06-2015
Registration No
2/2015
Registration Date
15-06-2015
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI
Judge
1253-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Muniyappa
Adv. M. K. Shivaram
Muniraju
Somashekar
Muniyamma
Siddamma
Respondent(s)
Doddarangaiah
D. Nagaraj
D. Muniyappa
G. Venkatesh
Hearing History
Judge: 1253-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
TO CALL ON
ORDERS
ORDERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-06-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 02-05-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 28-03-2026 | TO CALL ON |
| 26-03-2026 | ORDERS |
| 23-03-2026 | ORDERS |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: FDP.NO.2/2015 Outcome: Application rejected; case adjourned to 02.05.2026. The court rejected Respondent No.5's application (I.A. No. IX) seeking to claim an equitable share in partition proceedings as a purchaser pendente lite. Respondent No.5 had purchased property from Defendant No.4 via registered sale deed dated 09.03.2010, after the preliminary decree (26.11.2013) determined the petitioners' 1/5th share each. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court held that a purchaser during litigation is bound by the preliminary decree's determined shares and can only claim equity to the extent of the vendor's share—not independently claim new shares. The court found the application devoid of merit and issued no order on costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: FDP.NO.2/2015 Outcome: Application rejected; case adjourned to 02.05.2026. The court rejected Respondent No.5's application (I.A. No. IX) seeking to claim an equitable share in partition proceedings as a purchaser pendente lite. Respondent No.5 had purchased property from Defendant No.4 via registered sale deed dated 09.03.2010, after the preliminary decree (26.11.2013) determined the petitioners' 1/5th share each. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court held that a purchaser during litigation is bound by the preliminary decree's determined shares and can only claim equity to the extent of the vendor's share—not independently claim new shares. The court found the application devoid of merit and issued no order on costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts