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
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
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
Disposed
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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
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
Explore other courts