Rajendrababu S/o Basangouda Police Patil Age 45 years Occ Agril. vs Buggappa S/o Hanamantha Dyavammanor Age 65 years Occ Agril. — 29/2024
Case under Order 7 Rule 1 of Cpc Section 1and2. Status: EVIDENCE-CIVIL. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAYG030004482024
Next Hearing
05th June 2026
Filing Number
29/2024
Filing Date
07-02-2024
Registration No
29/2024
Registration Date
07-02-2024
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC YADGIR
Judge
334-PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,YADGIR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajendrababu S/o Basangouda Police Patil Age 45 years Occ Agril.
Adv. M.V.Karigouda
Respondent(s)
Buggappa S/o Hanamantha Dyavammanor Age 65 years Occ Agril.
Hearing History
Judge: 334-PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,YADGIR
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
| 05-03-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
| 07-02-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
| 08-01-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
| 24-10-2025 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
Interim Orders
On 08-01-2026, the court examined the petitioner's witness in OS 29/2024. The witness testified that the disputed land contains 6-7 houses and has been occupied for 8-10 years, with government structures like CC roads and drains built on it. The respondent allegedly constructed a structure (30x20 feet) on the disputed land that was later sold on 11.11.1996 for Rs. 3,600. The court found that the respondent is the current owner and occupant of the disputed 30x20 feet plot. No further cross-examination was needed, and the case proceeded with witness examination on record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
On 08-01-2026, the court examined the petitioner's witness in OS 29/2024. The witness testified that the disputed land contains 6-7 houses and has been occupied for 8-10 years, with government structures like CC roads and drains built on it. The respondent allegedly constructed a structure (30x20 feet) on the disputed land that was later sold on 11.11.1996 for Rs. 3,600. The court found that the respondent is the current owner and occupant of the disputed 30x20 feet plot. No further cross-examination was needed, and the case proceeded with witness examination on record. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts