J G RAVINDRANATH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS vs SMT. R SATYA W/O R MALLIKARJUNA D/O LATE GURUDASAPPA — RFA/100639/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.
CNR: KAHC020264942025
Filing Number
RFA/100630/2025
Filing Date
15-Dec-2025
Registration No
RFA/100639/2025
Registration Date
31-Dec-2025
Judge
H.p.sandesh , B. Muralidhara Pai
Coram
H.p.sandesh , B. Muralidhara Pai
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
RFA ( 132 )
Sub-Category
PAR-Partitions SuIT ( 84 )
Judicial Branch
Judicial Section
Decision Date
17-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 28-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.J G RAVINDRANATH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
Adv. GODE NAGARAJA
-
2.MISS. HARISHA D/O J G RAVINDRANATH
-
3.VIGNESH S/O LATE J G RAVINDRANATH
-
4.KUMARI J G RAMA D/O LATE GURUDASAPPA
Respondent(s)
-
1.SMT. R SATYA W/O R MALLIKARJUNA D/O LATE GURUDASAPPA
-
2.J G SHOBHA W/O P PRAHLAD KUMAR D/O GURUDASAPPA
-
3.J G PRAMEELA W/O S LAXMIKANTH D/O LATE GURUDASAPPA
-
4.SMT. ROOPA MURALIDHAR W/O W MURALIDHAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
29-Apr-2026
Non-Compliance Of Office-Objns For 1St Time
Addl. Registrar Judicial
-
17-Apr-2026
H.p.sandesh,b. Muralidhara PaiView PDF
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by J G Ravindranath's heirs challenging a partition suit judgment. The trial court had awarded each plaintiff a 1/5th share of the disputed properties, rejecting defendants' claims that the plaintiffs had already received their shares as cash and jewelry during their father's lifetime, and rejecting the claim that one property was validly sold to defendant No.4. The appellate court found no merit in the appeal and no grounds to condone the 140-day delay in filing it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
15-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. RFA/100639/2025
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by J G Ravindranath's heirs challenging a partition suit judgment. The trial court had awarded each plaintiff a 1/5th share of the disputed properties, rejecting defendants' claims that the plaintiffs had already received their shares as cash and jewelry during their father's lifetime, and rejecting the claim that one property was validly sold to defendant No.4. The appellate court found no merit in the appeal and no grounds to condone the 140-day delay in filing it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts