Basavanneppa Kallappa Kattimani. vs Rajappa Mahadevappa Bevinamarad — 41/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7,1,26. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUK810002442023
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
Filing Number
41/2023
Filing Date
18-04-2023
Registration No
41/2023
Registration Date
18-04-2023
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUNDGOD
Judge
530-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT MUNDGOD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Basavanneppa Kallappa Kattimani.
Adv. Shri. Ramakanth Narayan Hegde.
Respondent(s)
Rajappa Mahadevappa Bevinamarad
Smt. Renavva W/o. Rajappa Bevinamarad.
Smt. Maalavva W/o. Shekhappa Bevinamarad.
Mahesh Rajappa Bevinamarad.
Manjula W/o. Fakkirappa Chalawadi.
Mahantesh Ningappa Bevinamarad.
Hearing History
Judge: 530-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT MUNDGOD
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-04-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 27-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 12-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 22-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
The court order is in Kannada. Below is the summary: Case 41/2023 Summary: On 12.02.2026, the witness was examined and sworn testimony was recorded. The petitioner testified regarding a property dispute in Basavanapur village, claiming ownership of land and structures. The court found the petitioner's testimony lacked sufficient corroboration and documentary evidence. The respondents contested the petitioner's claims regarding property ownership and occupation. The court declined to grant the relief sought, as the petitioner failed to adequately establish ownership through credible evidence and admitted lack of proper documentation supporting the claim to the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court order is in Kannada. Below is the summary: Case 41/2023 Summary: On 12.02.2026, the witness was examined and sworn testimony was recorded. The petitioner testified regarding a property dispute in Basavanapur village, claiming ownership of land and structures. The court found the petitioner's testimony lacked sufficient corroboration and documentary evidence. The respondents contested the petitioner's claims regarding property ownership and occupation. The court declined to grant the relief sought, as the petitioner failed to adequately establish ownership through credible evidence and admitted lack of proper documentation supporting the claim to the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts