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

Case disposed

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

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section XLIII,Rule,1,R/W/S.151

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

07-03-2026

Disposed

27-02-2026

ORDERS

13-02-2026

ORDERS

12-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

22-01-2026

ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

07-03-2026
Orders

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KUDLIGI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case