Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Adjudicates Regular First Appeals Against Partition Decree. Trial Court Had Decreed Suit for Partition and Separate Possession, and Appeals Under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Challenge That Decree.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
Admin
2026-09-18 05:38:01
  • 98
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

KAHC030000012002_1

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (KAR) (12) 13

RFA No. 23 of 2002 c/w RFA No. 1012 of 2001

2022-12-22

S.R. Krishna Kumar, K.S. Hemalekha

Ameetkumar Deshpande, S.D. Sagari, Sanjeevkumar C. Patil, Basavaraj Kareddy, G. Krishnamurthy, L. Vijaykumar, G.B. Yadav

Sri Bhimasi Fakirappa Bijjur and Others

Sri Nagesh Bhimappa Waddar @ Maktedar and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Regular first appeal against judgment and decree passed in a suit for partition and separate possession.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the decree of partition passed by the trial court.

Filing Reason

Aggrieved by the trial court's decree granting partition, the appellants filed the appeal.

Previous Decisions

The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Muddebihal passed a decree in O.S. No. 155/2001 on 10.09.2001 granting partition and separate possession.

Procedural History

The plaintiff(s) filed O.S. No. 155/2001 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Muddebihal seeking partition and separate possession, which was decreed on 10.09.2001. Aggrieved, the defendants/appellants filed RFA No. 23/2002 and RFA No. 1012/2001 under Section 96 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 96
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
partition separate possession regular first appeal section 96 legal representatives

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Considers Whether Allottee's Withdrawal Right Under RERA Section 18 Is Unqualified After Possession with OC Was Offered; Questions If Such Possession Must Be Litigation-Free Under Section 19(10) 2026-09-19 21:50:45
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Conviction in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Evidence. The prosecution failed to establish a reliable case against the appellants based on eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence. 2026-09-19 21:50:33
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition Natural Justice acquittal murder compensation burden of proof limitation Article 226 land acquisition benefit of doubt
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

High Court of Bombay Hears Section 11 Arbitration Application for Appointment of Arbitrato...

Bombay High Court Allows Assessee in Central Excise Refund Interest Dispute Under Section ...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Income Tax Dispute — Jurisdiction under Section 263 U...

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Evidence. The prosecut...

Supreme Court Sets Aside Interim Orders in Arbitration Dispute Due to Lack of Consent. App...

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Orders Allowing Writ Petitions by Lessees in Land Encr...

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order Setting Aside Anganwadi Supervisor Appointment for ...

Lost Your Password?