AITHAPPA NAIKA . vs K. DAMODARA NAYAK @ K. LAKSHMANA NAYAK REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER KANANTHA NAYAK — C.A. No. 60/2009

Case under Section XI-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010238992006

Filing Date

18-Sep-2006

Registration No

C.A. No. 60/2009

Diary Number

23899/2006

Order Date

03-Aug-2017

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Disposed Off

Last updated 01-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XI-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AITHAPPA NAIKA .

    Adv. S. N. BHAT (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.K. DAMODARA NAYAK @ K. LAKSHMANA NAYAK REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER KANANTHA NAYAK

    Adv. SHIBU DEVASIA OLICKAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Aug-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 03-Aug-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

  4. 20-Jul-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 09-Sep-2015
  6. 09-Sep-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  7. 09-Sep-2015
  8. 08-Jul-2015
  9. 08-Jul-2015
  10. 11-May-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 02-Dec-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 11-Aug-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 05-Jan-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 05-Jan-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 19-Feb-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 12-Dec-2006
  17. 13-Oct-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 18-Sep-2006

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 60/2009

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CA No. 60/2009 Outcome: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and disposed of both civil appeals (CA 60/2009 and CA 61/2009) on August 3, 2017. The original decree required appellants Aithappa Naika to deliver possession and pay mesne profits (~Rs. 75,000) to respondent K. Damodara Nayak, but possession was already transferred; the Court exempted the appellants from paying mesne profits based on the peculiar circumstances, including their scheduled tribe status and the respondent's 10-year non-appearance suggesting lack of genuine interest in recovery. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case