Smt. Sujatha vs Sri. Shrikanth — 13/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Or.20, rule18. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 06th March 2026.
FDP - FINAL DECREE PROCEEDINGS
CNR: KAUP200004472020
Filing Number
13/2020
Filing Date
01-10-2020
Registration No
13/2020
Registration Date
07-10-2020
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA
Judge
801-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Smt. Sujatha
Adv. M. K. VIJAYA KUMAR
Sri. Shreepathi
Suprabha
Sri. Shivaramachandra K.
Smt. Shakunthala
Sri. Lakshmikanth
Sri. Sureshchandra K.
Sri. Sathishchandra K.
Sri. Dineshchandra K.
Smt. Sarvani
Anusha
Gururaj
Smt. Rathi
Smt. Shailaja
Smt. Banumathi K
Prakash
Pradeep K.
Prasanna K.
Smt. Manjula
Smt. Sunanda
Smt. Snehalatha
Shashikanth
Smt. Sumalatha
Sharath
K. Sheena
K. Vittala
Respondent(s)
Sri. Shrikanth
Hearing History
Judge: 801-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM
Disposed
ORDERS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-02-2026 | ORDERS |
| 09-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 03-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 28-01-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Senior Civil Judge at Karkala allowed a partition petition and accepted a court commissioner's property division report, allocating shares among 26 petitioners and one respondent from a 7.29-acre estate. The respondent's objection to receive only 0.05 acres instead of his claimed 0.06.75 acres was rejected, as the original defendant (the respondent's father) had never raised a defense regarding temple possession or the respondent's archaka (priest) status during the original suit. The court held that since the commissioner's report was already accepted and confirmed by the High Court, no further modifications could be made, and the petitioners' subsequent agreement to grant additional land could not reopen the matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary The Senior Civil Judge at Karkala allowed a partition petition and accepted a court commissioner's property division report, allocating shares among 26 petitioners and one respondent from a 7.29-acre estate. The respondent's objection to receive only 0.05 acres instead of his claimed 0.06.75 acres was rejected, as the original defendant (the respondent's father) had never raised a defense regarding temple possession or the respondent's archaka (priest) status during the original suit. The court held that since the commissioner's report was already accepted and confirmed by the High Court, no further modifications could be made, and the petitioners' subsequent agreement to grant additional land could not reopen the matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts