Shantamma W/o Ramanna Gudimani vs Mallikarjun S/o Ramanna Pujari, — 51/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/s,96,R/w,U/o,41,R1ofCPC. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED/GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 06th April 2026.
R.A - Regular Appeals
CNR: KAYG210018252024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
52/2024
Filing Date
08-11-2024
Registration No
51/2024
Registration Date
08-11-2024
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,SHAHAPUR
Judge
1231-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED/GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shantamma W/o Ramanna Gudimani
Adv. SRI T.NAGENDRA
Respondent(s)
Mallikarjun S/o Ramanna Pujari,
Manamma W/o Honnappa
Shrishail S/o Durgappa Chinchodi,
Bhimaraya S/o Hayyalappa
Hearing History
Judge: 1231-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Disposed
JUDGEMENT-CIVIL
ARGUMENTS-Civil
ARGUMENTS-Civil
ARGUMENTS-Civil
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 23-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT-CIVIL | |
| 18-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS-Civil | |
| 07-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS-Civil | |
| 03-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS-Civil |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Summary The Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Shahapur allowed the plaintiff Shantamma's appeal and set aside the trial court's dismissal of her injunction suit. The court found that the plaintiff, as widow of the original allottee, had lawful possession of the property allotted by CMC Shahapur in 1999, and granted a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession. The court relied on a prior 2003 judgment that had confirmed the plaintiff's husband's possession rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Summary The Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Shahapur allowed the plaintiff Shantamma's appeal and set aside the trial court's dismissal of her injunction suit. The court found that the plaintiff, as widow of the original allottee, had lawful possession of the property allotted by CMC Shahapur in 1999, and granted a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession. The court relied on a prior 2003 judgment that had confirmed the plaintiff's husband's possession rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts