Ramchandra Gajanan Hegde, Melina Mannige, Bommar, Honavar vs Lokesh Ganapayya Naik, Mannige, Honavar Advocate - H Udaykumar Naik — 26/2017
Case under U/o 26 Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 of Cpc. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED WITH COST on 25th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUK620004762017
Filing Number
26/2017
Filing Date
16-03-2017
Registration No
26/2017
Registration Date
16-03-2017
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONAVAR
Judge
528-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT,HONAVARA
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED WITH COST
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramchandra Gajanan Hegde, Melina Mannige, Bommar, Honavar
Adv. Gopalkrishna P Hegde
Respondent(s)
Lokesh Ganapayya Naik, Mannige, Honavar Advocate - H Udaykumar Naik
Smt. Kamala kom Ganapayya Naik, Mannige, Honavar
Smt. Bhageerathi kom Madev Naik, Mannege,Honavar
Gajanan Manju Naik, Mannege,Honavar
Nagesh Ganapayya Naik, Mannege,Honavar
Shambu Madev Naik, Mannege,Honavar
Adv. H Udaykumar Naik
Hearing History
Judge: 528-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT,HONAVARA
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 16-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 02-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: OS No. 26/2017 Court Decision: The suit for permanent injunction was dismissed with cost. The court found that plaintiff Ramachandra Gajanan Hegde failed to prove he was in lawful possession of the disputed forest land (Survey No. 72, Melina Mannige) or that defendants interfered with his possession. Key Reasoning: The plaintiff relied solely on oral testimony without producing documentary evidence (revenue records, grant orders, or certified copies) to substantiate his alleged possession or pending land grant applications. The court held that in possession disputes, documentary evidence is essential, and mere oral assertions are insufficient. The plaintiff admitted during cross-examination that the land had been encroached forest land since his grandfather's time, with earlier grant applications allegedly destroyed and no current pending applications demonstrated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS No. 26/2017 Court Decision: The suit for permanent injunction was dismissed with cost. The court found that plaintiff Ramachandra Gajanan Hegde failed to prove he was in lawful possession of the disputed forest land (Survey No. 72, Melina Mannige) or that defendants interfered with his possession. Key Reasoning: The plaintiff relied solely on oral testimony without producing documentary evidence (revenue records, grant orders, or certified copies) to substantiate his alleged possession or pending land grant applications. The court held that in possession disputes, documentary evidence is essential, and mere oral assertions are insufficient. The plaintiff admitted during cross-examination that the land had been encroached forest land since his grandfather's time, with earlier grant applications allegedly destroyed and no current pending applications demonstrated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts