Hanamantha vs Banya S/o Ganya Rathod Age 55 years Occ Agriculture and private employee — 251/2013
Case under Sec of Cpc Section 39. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAYG030011692013
Filing Number
256/2013
Filing Date
12-Sep-2013
Registration No
251/2013
Registration Date
13-Sep-2013
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC YADGIR
Judge
334-Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
Decision Date
07-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 08-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Hanamantha
Adv. Sharanappa M. Kandar
Respondent(s)
-
1.Banya S/o Ganya Rathod Age 55 years Occ Agriculture and private employee
-
2.Somya S/o Banya Age 37 years Occ Agril
-
3.Devibai W/o Gangaram (D/o Banya Rathod) Age 35 years Occ Housewife
-
4.Vijibai W/o Gopal Chavan (D/o Banya Rathod) Age 31 years Occ Housewife
-
5.Sonibai W/o Jayaram Chavan (D/o Banya Rathod) Age 29 years Occ Housewife
-
6.Shantibai W/o Somu Chavan (D/o Banya Rathod) Age 27 years Occ Housewife
-
7.Gowribai W/o Lachya Jadhav (D/o Banya Rathod) Age 25 years Occ Nil
-
8.Mannu S/o Banya Rathod Age 19 years Occ Agril
-
9.Khaja Bi W/o Mohammed Gouse Age 35 years Occ Agril
-
10.G. Nagabhushanam S/o. G. Chanchaiah, Age 27 years, Occ Agril
-
11.Mohammed Ibrahim S/o. Abdul Khader Gogi Age 65 years Occ Tailor
-
12.Subhash S/o Raghunathrao Dhadange Age 68 years Occ Agril and Business
-
13.Vithal Rao S/o Raghunath Rao Dhadange Age 65 years Occ Agril
-
14.Manik Rao S/o Raghunath Rao Dhadange Age 61 years Occ Agril
-
15.Dayanand S/o Raghunath Rao Dhadange Age 58 years Occ Agril
-
16.Dasharathrao S/o Raghunathrao Dhadange Age 55 years Occ Agril and Business
-
17.Chandrakant S/o Raghunathrao Dhadange Age 53 years Occ Agril and Business
-
18.Rajkumar S/o Raghunathrao Dhadange Age 51 years Occ Agril and Business
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Mar-2026
JudgmentView PDF
Court Summary The Yadgiri District Court dismissed the plaintiff's partition suit, finding he failed to prove the disputed properties were ancestral assets belonging to a joint family. The court determined the properties belonged to defendant No. 1 individually, and that registered sales executed in 1995 and 1997 were valid and binding, with the suit now barred by the 12-year limitation period under Article 109 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff was ordered to pay Rs. 3,000 costs each to defendants 10-18. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Mar-2026
Disposed
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
23-Feb-2026
Arguments-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
21-Feb-2026
Arguments-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
18-Feb-2026
Arguments-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
17-Feb-2026
Arguments-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
09-Feb-2026
Arguments-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
31-Jan-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
31-Jan-2026
Arguments-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
23-Jan-2026
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
14-Jan-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
14-Jan-2026
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
09-Jan-2026
Arguments-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
03-Jan-2026
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
19-Dec-2025
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
12-Dec-2025
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
05-Dec-2025
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
29-Nov-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
29-Nov-2025
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
22-Nov-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
22-Nov-2025
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
21-Nov-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
21-Nov-2025
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
15-Nov-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
15-Nov-2025
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
14-Nov-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
14-Nov-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
14-Nov-2025
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
13-Nov-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
13-Nov-2025
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
07-Nov-2025
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
23-Oct-2025
IssueView PDF
-
23-Oct-2025
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
15-Oct-2025
Issues-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
10-Oct-2025
OrdersView PDF
-
10-Oct-2025
Written Statement.
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
08-Oct-2025
Orders-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
27-Sep-2025
Orders-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
25-Sep-2025
Orders-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
17-Sep-2025
Objection
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
12-Sep-2025
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
29-Aug-2025
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
16-Aug-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
16-Aug-2025
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
12-Aug-2025
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
07-Aug-2025
Issues-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
04-Aug-2025
Evidence-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
09-Jul-2025
Appearance Of Party
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
05-Jun-2025
Appearance Of Party
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
02-Jun-2025
Steps
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
25-Mar-2025
Summons
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
20-Feb-2025
Summons
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
14-Feb-2025
Summons
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
13-Jan-2025
Summons
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
13-Dec-2024
Summons
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
11-Nov-2024
Summons
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
23-Oct-2024
Steps
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
13-Sep-2024
Notice
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
12-Aug-2024
Notice
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
03-Aug-2024
Hearing
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
02-Aug-2024
Restored
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
16-Sep-2016
OrdersView PDF
-
16-Sep-2016
Disposed
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
02-Sep-2016
Evidence-Criminal
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
18-Aug-2016
Evidence-Criminal
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
03-Aug-2016
Evidence-Criminal
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
20-Jul-2016
Evidence-Criminal
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
12-Jul-2016
Evidence-Criminal
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
01-Jul-2016
Evidence-Criminal
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
28-Jun-2016
List Of Witness And Documents
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
08-Jun-2016
Issues-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
15-Mar-2016
Compliance of 89 CPC
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
14-Dec-2015
Compliance of 89 CPC
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
08-Oct-2015
Compliance of 89 CPC
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
10-Jun-2015
Compliance of 89 CPC
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
03-Mar-2015
Issues-Criminal
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
21-Jan-2015
Evidence-Criminal
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
17-Dec-2014
Evidence-Criminal
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
26-Nov-2014
Evidence-Criminal
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
17-Nov-2014
Evidence-Criminal
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
07-Oct-2014
Steps
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
06-Oct-2014
Steps
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
29-Sep-2014
Steps
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
27-Aug-2014
Steps
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
06-Aug-2014
Steps
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
02-Jul-2014
Steps
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
18-Jun-2014
Steps
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
30-Apr-2014
Summons
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
12-Mar-2014
Summons
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
10-Mar-2014
Summons
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
27-Jan-2014
Summons
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
02-Dec-2013
Summons
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
28-Oct-2013
Appearance Of Party
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
13-Sep-2013
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Sep-2013
Hearing
-
12-Sep-2013
Case filed
Registration No. 251/2013
Court Summary The Yadgiri District Court dismissed the plaintiff's partition suit, finding he failed to prove the disputed properties were ancestral assets belonging to a joint family. The court determined the properties belonged to defendant No. 1 individually, and that registered sales executed in 1995 and 1997 were valid and binding, with the suit now barred by the 12-year limitation period under Article 109 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff was ordered to pay Rs. 3,000 costs each to defendants 10-18. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts