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
Filing Number
376/2024
Filing Date
22-Oct-2024
Registration No
376/2024
Registration Date
22-Oct-2024
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KUDLIGI
Judge
583-CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
Last updated 13-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.K. Veeranna S/o Late. Kaptral Basappa
Adv. J.K.R and J.K.G
-
2.K. Pampanna S/o Late. Kaptral Basappa
-
3.K. Shanmukhappa S/o Late. Kaptral Basappa
Respondent(s)
-
1.M. Maralusiddappa S/o Late. Mallal Sidramappa
-
2.Smt. Eramma W/o Late. Devendrappa
-
3.M. Chandrashekhara S/o Late. Mallal Sidramappa
-
4.S. Umakanth S/o Late. Mallal Sidramappa
-
5.Smt. Neelamma W/o Late. Veerabasappa
-
6.Smt. Rathnamma W/o Thirukappa D/o Mallal Veeramma
Case History
-
18-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Issues-C
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
13-Feb-2026
Issues-C
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
31-Oct-2025
Issues-C
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
19-Sep-2025
Issues-C
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
22-Aug-2025
OrdersView PDF
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.
-
22-Aug-2025
First Hearing/Maintainability-C
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
20-Aug-2025
Orders
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
18-Aug-2025
Orders
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
11-Aug-2025
Orders
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
04-Aug-2025
Orders
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
01-Aug-2025
Orders
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
19-Jul-2025
Orders
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
30-Jun-2025
Orders
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
17-Apr-2025
Arguments
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
08-Mar-2025
First Hearing/Maintainability-C
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
14-Feb-2025
First Hearing/Maintainability-C
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
10-Feb-2025
Arguments
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
25-Jan-2025
Arguments
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
04-Jan-2025
Written Statements/Objection To Main Petition-C
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
17-Dec-2024
Written Statements/Objection To Main Petition-C
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
24-Oct-2024
Awaiting Services Of Notices/Summons-C
CIVIL Judge And JMFC Kudligi Vijayanagara District
-
22-Oct-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Oct-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 376/2024
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.
Explore other courts