Gange Beeranna Gouda vs Sannatamma Ganapati Naik — 45/2017
Case under U/o 7 Rule 1 of C.p.c Section 26. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUK210009772017
Next Hearing
22nd June 2026
Filing Number
45/2017
Filing Date
13-07-2017
Registration No
45/2017
Registration Date
13-07-2017
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANKOLA
Judge
522-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANKOLA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gange Beeranna Gouda
Adv. SRI.M.P.BHAT
Neela Mangu Gouda
Nagamma Mahabaleshwar Gouda
Respondent(s)
Sannatamma Ganapati Naik
Venkatesh Sannatamma Naik
Hearing History
Judge: 522-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANKOLA
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
Objection
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-06-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 09-04-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 26-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 02-03-2026 | Objection |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. 45/2017 Court Order dated 29-10-2025 (Day 6 of hearing) Witness examination continued. The court found that the petitioner received ₹4-5 lakh from respondent's father on 16-01-2015 via hand delivery (not cheque). The witness testified to income sources (agriculture and transport business), family details (10 children, 2 in government jobs), and that respondent's father maintained separate residence but ate with them. The court noted discrepancies in the petitioner's account regarding when money was handed over, the exact amount, and documentation. The court found the petitioner and respondent fabricated purchase deeds dated 07-08-2015, 12-04-2016, and 07-03-2017 to defraud the plaintiff of disputed agricultural land. Case Status: No further cross-examination. Witness examination concluded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: O.S. 45/2017 Court Order dated 29-10-2025 (Day 6 of hearing) Witness examination continued. The court found that the petitioner received ₹4-5 lakh from respondent's father on 16-01-2015 via hand delivery (not cheque). The witness testified to income sources (agriculture and transport business), family details (10 children, 2 in government jobs), and that respondent's father maintained separate residence but ate with them. The court noted discrepancies in the petitioner's account regarding when money was handed over, the exact amount, and documentation. The court found the petitioner and respondent fabricated purchase deeds dated 07-08-2015, 12-04-2016, and 07-03-2017 to defraud the plaintiff of disputed agricultural land. Case Status: No further cross-examination. Witness examination concluded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts