Timmappa S/o Timmappa Gouda, Age 45 Years, R/o Mugli, Gunavante Village, Tq-Honnavar-581348 vs Shambhu S/o Manju Gouda, Age 60 Years, R/o Mugli, Gunavante Village, Tq-Honnavar — 9/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U.O 43, Rule 1(r). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

M.A. - MISCELLANUOUS APPEALS

CNR: KAUK610004562025

Filing Number

9/2025

Filing Date

11-Nov-2025

Registration No

9/2025

Registration Date

11-Nov-2025

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONAVAR

Judge

526-Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U.O 43, Rule 1(r)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Timmappa S/o Timmappa Gouda, Age 45 Years, R/o Mugli, Gunavante Village, Tq-Honnavar-581348

    Adv. Chandrashekar Gouda

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shambhu S/o Manju Gouda, Age 60 Years, R/o Mugli, Gunavante Village, Tq-Honnavar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary: MA No. 09/2025 Court Decision: The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Honnavar dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous appeal with costs, upholding the trial court's rejection of the temporary injunction application. Key Reasoning: The court found the appellant/plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for injunctive relief. The plaintiff claimed ownership of 3 acres based on an unregistered 1996 agreement to sell, but the original grantee held only 1 acre under temporary lagani (government grant). The court noted critical deficiencies: the unregistered agreement violates Section 17A of the Registration Act and Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act; no permanent lagani was ever granted; documents could not prove possession of the claimed 3 acres; and revenue authorities rejected the plaintiff's deforestation claims. The court cited Supreme Court precedent holding that plaintiffs cannot obtain relief for permanent injunction based on unregistered agreements to sell. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Decree

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  5. 28-Feb-2026

    Order

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  6. 11-Feb-2026

    Order

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  7. 31-Jan-2026

    Order

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  8. 17-Jan-2026

    Order

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  9. 03-Jan-2026

    Order

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  10. 06-Dec-2025

    Order

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  11. 22-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    Senior CIVIL Judge and JMFC Honavara

  12. 12-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  13. 11-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 9/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MA No. 09/2025 Court Decision: The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Honnavar dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous appeal with costs, upholding the trial court's rejection of the temporary injunction application. Key Reasoning: The court found the appellant/plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for injunctive relief. The plaintiff claimed ownership of 3 acres based on an unregistered 1996 agreement to sell, but the original grantee held only 1 acre under temporary lagani (government grant). The court noted critical deficiencies: the unregistered agreement violates Section 17A of the Registration Act and Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act; no permanent lagani was ever granted; documents could not prove possession of the claimed 3 acres; and revenue authorities rejected the plaintiff's deforestation claims. The court cited Supreme Court precedent holding that plaintiffs cannot obtain relief for permanent injunction based on unregistered agreements to sell. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case