Drakshayanamma W/o Late. Siddalingaiah vs Renukananda S/o Late. M.G.Halaiah — 11/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 43,1. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED /GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 18th March 2026.
M.A. - Miscellanuous Appeals
CNR: KAVN200004842025
Filing Number
11/2025
Filing Date
11-Mar-2025
Registration No
11/2025
Registration Date
11-Mar-2025
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KUDLIGI
Judge
174-Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED /GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
Last updated 21-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Drakshayanamma W/o Late. Siddalingaiah
Adv. Siddesh B
-
2.Manjunatha S/o Late Siddalingaiah
-
3.Kotraiah S/o late. Siddalingaiah
-
4.Nagaraja S/o late. Siddalingaiah
Respondent(s)
-
1.Renukananda S/o Late. M.G.Halaiah
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
Orders
Case Summary: M.A. No. 11/2025 Court Decision: The appellate court allowed the plaintiffs' miscellaneous appeal and set aside the trial court's rejection of their temporary injunction application. The court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession of the disputed agricultural property until suit disposal. Key Reasoning: Based on documentary evidence—including a registered sale deed from 1967, continuous revenue records showing the plaintiffs' father as owner since 1968-69, and bank mortgage documents—the court found the plaintiffs established a prima-facie case of possession and ownership. The defendant failed to produce evidence of actual possession, relying only on an old sale certificate. The court determined the trial court erred by conflating title determination with possession assessment for temporary injunction purposes, wrongly rejecting the application without properly evaluating possession evidence and balance of convenience. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
27-Feb-2026
Orders
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
18-Feb-2026
Orders
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
22-Jan-2026
Orders
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
19-Dec-2025
Orders
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
11-Dec-2025
Orders
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
21-Nov-2025
Orders
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
11-Nov-2025
Orders
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
25-Oct-2025
Orders
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
17-Oct-2025
Orders
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
13-Oct-2025
Orders
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
17-Sep-2025
Arguments
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
09-Sep-2025
Arguments
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
21-Aug-2025
Arguments
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
06-Aug-2025
Arguments
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
09-Jul-2025
Arguments
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
18-Jun-2025
Arguments
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
15-Apr-2025
First Hearing/Maintainability-C
Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
11-Mar-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Mar-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 11/2025
Case Summary: M.A. No. 11/2025 Court Decision: The appellate court allowed the plaintiffs' miscellaneous appeal and set aside the trial court's rejection of their temporary injunction application. The court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession of the disputed agricultural property until suit disposal. Key Reasoning: Based on documentary evidence—including a registered sale deed from 1967, continuous revenue records showing the plaintiffs' father as owner since 1968-69, and bank mortgage documents—the court found the plaintiffs established a prima-facie case of possession and ownership. The defendant failed to produce evidence of actual possession, relying only on an old sale certificate. The court determined the trial court erred by conflating title determination with possession assessment for temporary injunction purposes, wrongly rejecting the application without properly evaluating possession evidence and balance of convenience. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts