Rajamma vs Hanumanthappa — 679/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/o 7 R 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 16th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KARN410009422022
Filing Number
680/2022
Filing Date
15-11-2022
Registration No
679/2022
Registration Date
15-11-2022
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI
Judge
1029-PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajamma
Adv. N.N Sridhar
Siddagangamma
Adv. N N SHRIDHAR
Respondent(s)
Hanumanthappa
Narasamma
Rajanna
Jayamma
Lokesh
Geetha
Byrappa
B. Latha
B Hemanth
Muniyappa
M. Swetha
M.Manjula
M. Kiran
Giriyappa
G. Mamatha
G. Swetha
G. Yashoda
G Kumari
M.D. Kowshik
N.C.Prakash
Adv. CHITHRASHEKARAIAH H.A.
T.M Shobha
D20.N C Prakash
D21,T M Shobha
Hearing History
Judge: 1029-PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Disposed
JUDGMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | JUDGMENTS |
| 11-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 07-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 23-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: OS No. 679/2022 Court Decision: The Senior Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' partition suit with costs. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish their claim to a share in the disputed property because their father Anjanappa himself executed the 2002 sale deed alienating the property, and a 2002 partition had already been conducted within the joint family. Key Reasoning: Under Hindu Succession law applicable pre-2004, daughters had limited rights in joint family property. Critically, since the father participated in executing the challenged sale deeds and a family partition occurred during his lifetime, the daughter-plaintiffs could not claim separate rights to the sold property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS No. 679/2022 Court Decision: The Senior Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' partition suit with costs. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish their claim to a share in the disputed property because their father Anjanappa himself executed the 2002 sale deed alienating the property, and a 2002 partition had already been conducted within the joint family. Key Reasoning: Under Hindu Succession law applicable pre-2004, daughters had limited rights in joint family property. Critically, since the father participated in executing the challenged sale deeds and a family partition occurred during his lifetime, the daughter-plaintiffs could not claim separate rights to the sold property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts