M.P.M Gowramma W/o Late. M.P.M Veeresh vs M.P.M Sarojamma W/o. Late. M.P.M Chandraiah, Dead by LRs — 8/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order,7,Rule,1,Sec,26. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 06th March 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAVN310001352023

Case disposed

Filing Number

8/2023

Filing Date

04-02-2023

Registration No

8/2023

Registration Date

04-02-2023

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI

Judge

1213-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT

Decision Date

06th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Order,7,Rule,1,Sec,26

Petitioner(s)

M.P.M Gowramma W/o Late. M.P.M Veeresh

Adv. B.Haleshi

Respondent(s)

M.P.M Sarojamma W/o. Late. M.P.M Chandraiah, Dead by LRs

Hearing History

Judge: 1213-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT

06-03-2026

Disposed

21-02-2026

JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER

07-02-2026

JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER

24-01-2026

ARGUMENTS

17-01-2026

ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

06-03-2026
Judgment

Summary The court dismissed the plaintiffs' partition suit with costs. While the court found that one property (Item No.3) was ancestral joint family property, it ruled the suit was not maintainable because: (1) the plaintiffs failed to prove other disputed properties were joint family assets; (2) registered sale deeds and gift deeds executed in 2010-2015 were legally valid and binding, with the plaintiffs' delay in filing suit (until 2018) suggesting knowledge that properties were not joint family assets; (3) the suit was defective for non-joinder of necessary parties (the propositus's brothers) and movable properties that should have been included in partition proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

26-10-2024
Deposition
01-02-2025
Deposition
25-04-2025
Deposition
21-06-2025
Deposition
06-09-2025
Deposition
19-12-2025
Orders
casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court dismissed the plaintiffs' partition suit with costs. While the court found that one property (Item No.3) was ancestral joint family property, it ruled the suit was not maintainable because: (1) the plaintiffs failed to prove other disputed properties were joint family assets; (2) registered sale deeds and gift deeds executed in 2010-2015 were legally valid and binding, with the plaintiffs' delay in filing suit (until 2018) suggesting knowledge that properties were not joint family assets; (3) the suit was defective for non-joinder of necessary parties (the propositus's brothers) and movable properties that should have been included in partition proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case