B. Rajashekar Gouda vs Pushpa Patil Alias Mukdadamma — 32/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/o.7Rule,1,R/w26. Status: ISSUES-C. Next hearing: 14th March 2026.
O.S. - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KAVN510001552022
Next Hearing
14th March 2026
Filing Number
32/2022
Filing Date
09-02-2022
Registration No
32/2022
Registration Date
09-02-2022
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI
Judge
254-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARAPANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
B. Rajashekar Gouda
Adv. B.KRISHNAMURTHY
Respondent(s)
Pushpa Patil Alias Mukdadamma
Linganagouda
Gangamma Patel
Basavanagouda
Sakramara Nagaraja
Kavitha
Sunitha
Savitramma
Channamma
Shankramma
Rushabendragouda
Ratnamma
Mamatha
Hearing History
Judge: 254-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARAPANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
ISSUES-C
ISSUES-C
ISSUES-C
ISSUES-C
ISSUES-C
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | ISSUES-C |
| 11-12-2025 | ISSUES-C |
| 23-10-2025 | ISSUES-C |
| 10-09-2025 | ISSUES-C |
| 07-08-2025 | ISSUES-C |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for ex-parte temporary injunction (I.A. No.1) seeking to restrain defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of the disputed agricultural property (Sy.No.310C/1). The judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as revenue records showed the property was jointly registered in both the plaintiff's and defendants' names, and the court could not conduct a "mini-trial" to determine actual possession at the interlocutory stage. The case will proceed to full trial where the ownership dispute will be decided on evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for ex-parte temporary injunction (I.A. No.1) seeking to restrain defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of the disputed agricultural property (Sy.No.310C/1). The judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as revenue records showed the property was jointly registered in both the plaintiff's and defendants' names, and the court could not conduct a "mini-trial" to determine actual possession at the interlocutory stage. The case will proceed to full trial where the ownership dispute will be decided on evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts