HANUMESH vs CHANNAMMA — C.A. No. 1220/2006

Case under Section XII-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010035212006

Filing Date

06-Feb-2006

Registration No

C.A. No. 1220/2006

Diary Number

3521/2006

Order Date

14-Feb-2019

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Disposed Off

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XII-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HANUMESH

    Adv. V. N. RAGHUPATHY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.CHANNAMMA

    Adv. C. V. SUBBA RAO

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Feb-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 14-Feb-2019

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

  4. 13-Feb-2019

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

  5. 12-Feb-2019

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

  6. 07-Feb-2019

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

  7. 15-Jan-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 15-Jan-2019

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

  9. 08-Mar-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 03-Aug-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 03-Aug-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 20-Feb-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 06-Feb-2006

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 1220/2006

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: Hanumesh v. Channamma (C.A. No. 1220/2006) The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the Regular Second Appeal back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The dispute concerned ownership of Survey No.315 land (1 acre 3 guntas). The trial court had partly decreed the suit, awarding the western half to plaintiff Hanumesh; the High Court reversed this and limited defendant Channamma's rights to only 3 guntas on the eastern side. The Supreme Court found the High Court had criticized lower courts for not properly considering documentary evidence but failed to conduct its own review before allowing the appeal. The Court directed the High Court to reconsider the appeal afresh, within one year, after hearing both parties, without expressing any opinion on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case