Ramachandra Devu Naik vs Shivanand Devu Naik — 4/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section u/Or.7,Ruel1,Sec.26. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 16th April 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUK210000422024
Next Hearing
16th April 2026
Filing Number
4/2024
Filing Date
10-01-2024
Registration No
4/2024
Registration Date
29-01-2024
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANKOLA
Judge
522-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANKOLA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramachandra Devu Naik
Adv. Manjunath Parameshwar Bhat
Shantaram Devu Naik
Respondent(s)
Shivanand Devu Naik
Neela Kom Ramachandra Naik yane Neela Devu Naik
Kamala Ko Rama Naik Yane Kamala Devu Naik
Shivamma Kom Narayan Naik
Shrinivas Narayan Naik
Malati Kom Shripad Naik
Sulochana Narayan Naik
Sindhu Datta Anandu Naik
Pushpa Kom Janardhan Naik
Vijaya kom Ramachandra Naik
Lata Kom Maruti Naik
Shobha Aravind Naik
Mahalaxmi Kom Arun Naik
Hearing History
Judge: 522-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANKOLA
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 13-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 06-01-2026 | HEARING |
| 17-12-2025 | HEARING |
| 12-12-2025 | HEARING |
Interim Orders
Summary The court dismissed the interim mandatory injunction application (IA No. III) filed by Defendant No. 1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC. The defendant sought to restrain Plaintiff No. 1 from growing areca nut trees on a disputed 12-foot road, claiming obstruction to his ingress and egress. The court found that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case, as his claim to rights over the road rested on an unregistered affidavit before a notary, which under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act cannot transfer property rights. The application was dismissed as the defendant could not demonstrate prima facie entitlement to the relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed the interim mandatory injunction application (IA No. III) filed by Defendant No. 1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC. The defendant sought to restrain Plaintiff No. 1 from growing areca nut trees on a disputed 12-foot road, claiming obstruction to his ingress and egress. The court found that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case, as his claim to rights over the road rested on an unregistered affidavit before a notary, which under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act cannot transfer property rights. The application was dismissed as the defendant could not demonstrate prima facie entitlement to the relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts