Tippayya Channayya Hiremath Yane Nelliharavi vs Hammanna Mahabal Nayak — 33/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order.7,Rule.1,r/w.Sec.26. Status: SUMMONS. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAUK810003492026

SUMMONS

Next Hearing

02nd June 2026

Filing Number

34/2026

Filing Date

24-02-2026

Registration No

33/2026

Registration Date

25-02-2026

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUNDGOD

Judge

530-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT MUNDGOD

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Order.7,Rule.1,r/w.Sec.26

Petitioner(s)

Tippayya Channayya Hiremath Yane Nelliharavi

Adv. N B Sannallimane

Ganagayya Channayya Hiremath Yane Nelliharavi

Shekayya Chennayya Hiremath Yane Nelliharavi

Gurupadayya Chennayya Hiremath Yane Nelliharavi

Gadigeyya Chennayya Hiremath Yane Nelliharavi

Respondent(s)

Hammanna Mahabal Nayak

Hearing History

Judge: 530-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT MUNDGOD

18-03-2026

SUMMONS

17-03-2026

ORDERS

16-03-2026

ORDERS

11-03-2026

ORDERS

06-03-2026

ORDERS

Interim Orders

18-03-2026
Orders

SUMMARY The court allowed the interim application and granted a temporary injunction protecting the plaintiffs' peaceful possession of their agricultural land. The defendant and his associates are interdicted from interfering with the suit property until final disposal of the case, with both parties directed to maintain status quo. The court found that while balance of convenience partly favored both sides, the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of encroachment on their southern boundary, despite the defendant's reliance on a prior survey order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The court allowed the interim application and granted a temporary injunction protecting the plaintiffs' peaceful possession of their agricultural land. The defendant and his associates are interdicted from interfering with the suit property until final disposal of the case, with both parties directed to maintain status quo. The court found that while balance of convenience partly favored both sides, the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of encroachment on their southern boundary, despite the defendant's reliance on a prior survey order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUNDGOD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case