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
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
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
SUMMONS
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 17-03-2026 | ORDERS |
| 16-03-2026 | ORDERS |
| 11-03-2026 | ORDERS |
| 06-03-2026 | ORDERS |
Interim 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.
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
Explore other courts