Siddappa S/o Rachappa Sajjan Shetty Teli Aged about 79 years Occ Agril and Rtd Employee vs Sharanamma W/o Siddalingappa Sajjan Shetty Teli Aged about 60 years Occ Agril and House hold — 185/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1and2. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAYG030040452024
Filing Number
188/2024
Filing Date
29-Aug-2024
Registration No
185/2024
Registration Date
30-Aug-2024
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC YADGIR
Judge
334-Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Siddappa S/o Rachappa Sajjan Shetty Teli Aged about 79 years Occ Agril and Rtd Employee
Adv. DEVENDRAPPA S M
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sharanamma W/o Siddalingappa Sajjan Shetty Teli Aged about 60 years Occ Agril and House hold
-
2.Tirupathi S/o Chinnayya Age 29 years Occ Agril
-
3.Narasimha S/o Erappa Age 32 years Occ Agril
Case History
-
05-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
26-Mar-2026
OrdersView PDF
Case Summary: OS No. 185/2024 Outcome: The plaintiff's application for temporary injunction (IA No. 1) was dismissed with costs of Rs. 3,000 each payable to all three defendants. Key Facts: A 79-year-old plaintiff sought to restrain defendants from interfering with agricultural land in Yadgiri, claiming he acquired ownership through family partition despite defendant No. 1's name appearing in revenue records. Defendant No. 1 subsequently sold the land to defendants No. 2 and 3 via registered deed dated 10.07.2024. Court's Reasoning: The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, noting his earlier suit (OS No. 26/2020) seeking identical relief was already dismissed on 02.01.2024, and his appeal remains pending. The court determined the suit appears barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-Mar-2026
Hearing
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
25-Mar-2026
Hearing
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
24-Mar-2026
Hearing
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
23-Mar-2026
Hearing
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
13-Mar-2026
Hearing
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
22-Jan-2026
Hearing
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
29-Nov-2025
Hearing
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
28-Oct-2025
Hearing
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
22-Sep-2025
Hearing
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
28-Aug-2025
Objection
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
31-Jul-2025
Objection
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
05-Jun-2025
Objection
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
27-Mar-2025
Objection
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
04-Feb-2025
Objection
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
23-Jan-2025
Objection
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
04-Jan-2025
Written Statement.
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
03-Jan-2025
Written Statement.
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
04-Dec-2024
Written Statement.
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
27-Nov-2024
Written Statement.
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
28-Oct-2024
Written Statement.
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
27-Sep-2024
Summons
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
02-Sep-2024
Summons
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
31-Aug-2024
Orders-CIVIL
Prl.civil Judge And Jmfc,yadgir
-
30-Aug-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
29-Aug-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 185/2024
Case Summary: OS No. 185/2024 Outcome: The plaintiff's application for temporary injunction (IA No. 1) was dismissed with costs of Rs. 3,000 each payable to all three defendants. Key Facts: A 79-year-old plaintiff sought to restrain defendants from interfering with agricultural land in Yadgiri, claiming he acquired ownership through family partition despite defendant No. 1's name appearing in revenue records. Defendant No. 1 subsequently sold the land to defendants No. 2 and 3 via registered deed dated 10.07.2024. Court's Reasoning: The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, noting his earlier suit (OS No. 26/2020) seeking identical relief was already dismissed on 02.01.2024, and his appeal remains pending. The court determined the suit appears barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts