Kesaramandi Shavantravva W/o Late Kesaramandi Nagappa vs Holagundi Kotresh S/o Late Basappa — 127/2017
Case under Under Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 Read with Sec 26 of Cpc Section VIIrule,1and2,CPC. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 26th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAVN300014722017
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
127/2017
Filing Date
10-07-2017
Registration No
127/2017
Registration Date
10-07-2017
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI
Judge
584-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
Decision Date
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kesaramandi Shavantravva W/o Late Kesaramandi Nagappa
Adv. ASHOKA KANAKERI
Respondent(s)
Holagundi Kotresh S/o Late Basappa
Hearing History
Judge: 584-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
Disposed
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 25-03-2026 | JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER | |
| 07-03-2026 | JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER | |
| 05-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 03-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land (Sy.No.107/C, 6.80 acres). The judge found that the plaintiff failed to prove absolute ownership and possession because: (1) the settlement deed from her mother lacked specific property boundaries and stated the mother had no right to alienate the land; (2) the plaintiff never pleaded when her mother died or proved she acquired possession afterward; and (3) under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in actual possession, as confirmed by revenue records showing the defendant held the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land (Sy.No.107/C, 6.80 acres). The judge found that the plaintiff failed to prove absolute ownership and possession because: (1) the settlement deed from her mother lacked specific property boundaries and stated the mother had no right to alienate the land; (2) the plaintiff never pleaded when her mother died or proved she acquired possession afterward; and (3) under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in actual possession, as confirmed by revenue records showing the defendant held the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts