C Raju S/o Late. Hanumanthappa vs Smt. Kariyamma W/o Late. Chalavadi Hanumanthappa — 16/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section XLIII,Rule,1,R/W/S.151. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th March 2026.
M.A. - Miscellanuous Appeals
CNR: KAVN200012902025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
16/2025
Filing Date
28-07-2025
Registration No
16/2025
Registration Date
28-07-2025
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KUDLIGI
Judge
174-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUDLIGI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
C Raju S/o Late. Hanumanthappa
Adv. A.VIJAYAKUMAR
Respondent(s)
Smt. Kariyamma W/o Late. Chalavadi Hanumanthappa
Anjinappa S/o Late. Chalavadihanumanthappa
Erappa S/o Late. Chalavadi Hanumanthappa
Nagaraja S/o Late. Chalavadi Hanumanthappa
Hearing History
Judge: 174-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUDLIGI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
Disposed
ORDERS
ORDERS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 27-02-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 13-02-2026 | ORDERS | |
| 12-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 22-01-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and confirmed the trial court's order granting a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The court found that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of ownership based on government grant certificates, revenue records, and continuous possession since 1959, while the defendant produced no documentary evidence of ownership. The balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs, as vacating the injunction would cause them greater hardship than maintaining it would cause the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and confirmed the trial court's order granting a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The court found that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of ownership based on government grant certificates, revenue records, and continuous possession since 1959, while the defendant produced no documentary evidence of ownership. The balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs, as vacating the injunction would cause them greater hardship than maintaining it would cause the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts