Mr. K. Parameshwara, vs Mr. Maheshwara alias Mahesh, Advocate - Malyady Jayarama Shetty — 323/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/s 26, O 7,r 1 and 2. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 13th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAUP400017262023
Next Hearing
13th March 2026
Filing Number
323/2023
Filing Date
17-01-2023
Registration No
323/2023
Registration Date
17-01-2023
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,BAINDURU
Judge
1528-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mr. K. Parameshwara,
Adv. T. Balachandra Shetty
Respondent(s)
Mr. Maheshwara alias Mahesh, Advocate - Malyady Jayarama Shetty
Hearing History
Judge: 1528-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
FOR PAYMENT OF COST
FOR PAYMENT OF COST
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 04-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 25-11-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 24-11-2025 | FOR PAYMENT OF COST |
| 21-11-2025 | FOR PAYMENT OF COST |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: In O.S. No. 323/2023, decided on 19-06-2025, the court dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking declaration of ownership over the disputed property. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish valid ownership rights, as critical documentary evidence (Exhibit 3) lacked proper authentication and was not presented before the Assistant Commissioner. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claims were based on false allegations against the defendants and that the property did not form part of the plaintiff's recognized estate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: In O.S. No. 323/2023, decided on 19-06-2025, the court dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking declaration of ownership over the disputed property. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish valid ownership rights, as critical documentary evidence (Exhibit 3) lacked proper authentication and was not presented before the Assistant Commissioner. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claims were based on false allegations against the defendants and that the property did not form part of the plaintiff's recognized estate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts