Laxmi W/o Timmappa Naik vs Babu S/o Devayya Naik — 5/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26, VII, 1 and 2. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUK320000962020
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
5/2020
Filing Date
03-09-2020
Registration No
5/2020
Registration Date
03-09-2020
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHATKAL
Judge
1229-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BHATKAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Laxmi W/o Timmappa Naik
Adv. J. D. Bhat
Raju Bin Timmappa Naik
Adv. J. D. Bhat
Durgamma W/o Ananth Naik
Sushila W/o Parmeshwar Naik
Adv. J. D. Bhat
Bharathi W/o Venkatraman Naik
Adv. J. D. Bhat
Nagamma W/o Timmappa Naik
Babu Bin Timmappa Naik
Adv. J. D. Bhat
Nagesh Bin Timmappa Naik
Jayashri Bin Timmappa Naik
Adv. J. D. Bhat
Respondent(s)
Babu S/o Devayya Naik
Hearing History
Judge: 1229-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BHATKAL
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-06-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 10-04-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 27-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 13-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. 5/2020 Date: 18-07-2025 This is a civil property dispute case. The petitioners (Laxmi, Raju, and Durgamma) presented witness testimony regarding ownership and management of ancestral property located in Survey No. 303/4. The witness testified about family circumstances, property inheritance, and claims that the petitioners' family have managed and occupied the disputed property for approximately 20 years. The respondent's counsel (Babu) requested adjournment, which was granted. Case adjourned; further proceedings pending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: O.S. 5/2020 Date: 18-07-2025 This is a civil property dispute case. The petitioners (Laxmi, Raju, and Durgamma) presented witness testimony regarding ownership and management of ancestral property located in Survey No. 303/4. The witness testified about family circumstances, property inheritance, and claims that the petitioners' family have managed and occupied the disputed property for approximately 20 years. The respondent's counsel (Babu) requested adjournment, which was granted. Case adjourned; further proceedings pending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts