Smt. Drakshayanamma W/o. Late. Halappa vs Sanna Lakkappa S/o. Late. Mallappa — 298/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O.7,Rule 1. Status: Evidence-C. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.

Evidence-C Next hearing 25-Jun-2026

O.S. - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KAVN510037212025

e-Filing Number

10-11-2025

Filing Number

298/2025

Filing Date

11-Nov-2025

Registration No

298/2025

Registration Date

11-Nov-2025

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI

Judge

254-CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O.7,Rule 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Smt. Drakshayanamma W/o. Late. Halappa

    Adv. REVANAGOUDA BRG

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sanna Lakkappa S/o. Late. Mallappa

  2. 2.Mahesh S/o. Late. Mallappa

  3. 3.Dodda Dandyeppa S/io. Late. Choudappa

  4. 4.Sanna Dandyeppa S/o. Late. Choudappa

Case History

  1. 25-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 16-Apr-2026

    Evidence-C

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Evidence-C

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  8. 26-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  9. 21-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  10. 18-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  11. 10-Feb-2026

    For Objection/Counter To Main Petition(cr)

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  12. 30-Jan-2026

    For Objection/Counter To Main Petition(cr)

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  13. 15-Dec-2025

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary: OS-298/2025 Outcome: Temporary injunction GRANTED The Civil Judge at Harapanahalli allowed the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC, restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property until the suit's disposal. The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case based on RORs (Records of Rights) showing the property in her late husband's name and subsequently in hers, rejected defendants' unsupported claims about ancestral joint family property, and determined balance of convenience favored the plaintiff to prevent irreparable loss. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  14. 15-Dec-2025

    Issues-C

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  15. 12-Dec-2025

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  16. 06-Dec-2025

    Orders

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  17. 04-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  18. 26-Nov-2025

    For Objection/Counter To Main Petition(cr)

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  19. 19-Nov-2025

    For Objection/Counter To Main Petition(cr)

    CIVIL Judge And JMFC Harapanahalli Vijayanagara District

  20. 12-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  21. 11-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 298/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OS-298/2025 Outcome: Temporary injunction GRANTED The Civil Judge at Harapanahalli allowed the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC, restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property until the suit's disposal. The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case based on RORs (Records of Rights) showing the property in her late husband's name and subsequently in hers, rejected defendants' unsupported claims about ancestral joint family property, and determined balance of convenience favored the plaintiff to prevent irreparable loss. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case