UFM Halappa Narayan Naik, aged about 60 years, R/o Nagare, Tq-Honnavar vs UFM Madev Rama Naik, aged about 60 year, r/o Balkur, Honavar taluk Advocate - Ganesh Vishnu Bhat — 5/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/o 41, Rule 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 26th March 2026.

Case disposed

R.A. - Regular Appeals

CNR: KAUK610001342024

Filing Number

5/2024

Filing Date

12-Mar-2024

Registration No

5/2024

Registration Date

12-Mar-2024

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONAVAR

Judge

526-Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

Decision Date

26-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U/o 41, Rule 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UFM Halappa Narayan Naik, aged about 60 years, R/o Nagare, Tq-Honnavar

    Adv. Gopalkrishna Parameshwar Hegde

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UFM Madev Rama Naik, aged about 60 year, r/o Balkur, Honavar taluk Advocate - Ganesh Vishnu Bhat

  2. 2.UFM Laxman Ganapati Naik, aged about 60 yrs, r/o Balkur, Honavar taluk

  3. 3.U.F.M. Keshav Hanumanth Naik, aged about 60 years, r/o Balkur, Honavar taluk

  4. 4.UFM Baira Hanumanth Naik, aged about 45 years, r/o Balkur, Honavar taluk

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-Mar-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: RA 5/2024 — Halappa Narayan Naik v. Madev Rama Naik & Others Decision: The appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the partial partition decree. The court granted the plaintiff a 1/5th share in Items 1-10 of the ancestral properties but rejected his claim to Item 11, finding it was granted solely to Rama Sankoos Naik (the defendant's father) based on his 20 years of separate possession and cultivation, not as joint family property. Key Reasoning: Although the plaintiff argued that Item 11 should be partitionable among all five sons of the original patriarch Sankoos Naik under Hindu Mitakshara law, the court determined the Land Tribunal had granted Item 11 exclusively to Rama Sankoos Naik as a protected tenant, not on behalf of the joint family through any form submitted by all brothers. The evidence showed only Rama cultivated Item 11 separately for 20 years, without joint cultivation by other brothers, thus negating the family benefit argument. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-Mar-2026

    Decree

  4. 26-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Judgments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Judgments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  7. 09-Feb-2026

    Judgments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  8. 28-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  9. 23-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  10. 22-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  11. 07-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  12. 05-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  13. 08-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  14. 17-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  15. 03-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  16. 13-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  17. 08-Sep-2025

    Notice

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  18. 01-Sep-2025

    Steps

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  19. 20-Aug-2025

    Steps

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  20. 11-Aug-2025

    Steps

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  21. 04-Aug-2025

    Steps

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  22. 16-Jul-2025

    Notice

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  23. 07-Jul-2025

    Steps

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  24. 24-Jun-2025

    Steps

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  25. 19-Jun-2025

    A.D.R.

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  26. 11-Jun-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  27. 11-Apr-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  28. 09-Apr-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  29. 17-Mar-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  30. 03-Mar-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  31. 27-Jan-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  32. 06-Jan-2025

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  33. 09-Dec-2024

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  34. 12-Nov-2024

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  35. 21-Oct-2024

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  36. 20-Sep-2024

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  37. 03-Sep-2024

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  38. 05-Aug-2024

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  39. 04-Jul-2024

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  40. 12-Jun-2024

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  41. 24-Apr-2024

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  42. 13-Mar-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  43. 12-Mar-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 5/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RA 5/2024 — Halappa Narayan Naik v. Madev Rama Naik & Others Decision: The appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the partial partition decree. The court granted the plaintiff a 1/5th share in Items 1-10 of the ancestral properties but rejected his claim to Item 11, finding it was granted solely to Rama Sankoos Naik (the defendant's father) based on his 20 years of separate possession and cultivation, not as joint family property. Key Reasoning: Although the plaintiff argued that Item 11 should be partitionable among all five sons of the original patriarch Sankoos Naik under Hindu Mitakshara law, the court determined the Land Tribunal had granted Item 11 exclusively to Rama Sankoos Naik as a protected tenant, not on behalf of the joint family through any form submitted by all brothers. The evidence showed only Rama cultivated Item 11 separately for 20 years, without joint cultivation by other brothers, thus negating the family benefit argument. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case