K. Veeranna S/o Late. Kaptral Basappa vs M. Maralusiddappa S/o Late. Mallal Sidramappa — 376/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7,rule 1 and 2 R/w 151. Status: ISSUES-C. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAVN210031722024
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
Filing Number
376/2024
Filing Date
22-10-2024
Registration No
376/2024
Registration Date
22-10-2024
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KUDLIGI
Judge
583-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUDLIGI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K. Veeranna S/o Late. Kaptral Basappa
Adv. J.K.R and J.K.G
K. Pampanna S/o Late. Kaptral Basappa
K. Shanmukhappa S/o Late. Kaptral Basappa
Respondent(s)
M. Maralusiddappa S/o Late. Mallal Sidramappa
Smt. Eramma W/o Late. Devendrappa
M. Chandrashekhara S/o Late. Mallal Sidramappa
S. Umakanth S/o Late. Mallal Sidramappa
Smt. Neelamma W/o Late. Veerabasappa
Smt. Rathnamma W/o Thirukappa D/o Mallal Veeramma
Hearing History
Judge: 583-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUDLIGI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
ISSUES-C
ISSUES-C
ISSUES-C
ISSUES-C
FIRST HEARING/MAINTAINABILITY-C
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | ISSUES-C |
| 13-02-2026 | ISSUES-C |
| 31-10-2025 | ISSUES-C |
| 19-09-2025 | ISSUES-C |
| 22-08-2025 | FIRST HEARING/MAINTAINABILITY-C |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for interim temporary injunction seeking to restrain defendants from interfering with a right of way through defendant's property to access plaintiff's land. The judge found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as they provided insufficient material evidence regarding the existence and location of the claimed easement right, and the sale deed purchasing the property did not document any such right of way. Consequently, the issues of balance of convenience and irreparable loss did not arise, and the application was dismissed without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for interim temporary injunction seeking to restrain defendants from interfering with a right of way through defendant's property to access plaintiff's land. The judge found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as they provided insufficient material evidence regarding the existence and location of the claimed easement right, and the sale deed purchasing the property did not document any such right of way. Consequently, the issues of balance of convenience and irreparable loss did not arise, and the application was dismissed without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts