NAGESHWAR PRASAD MANDAL vs SRI NANDAN YADAV AND OTHERS — 3/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 15. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 08th July 2026.
MONEY SUIT
CNR: BRKH120001102021
Filing Number
108/2021
Filing Date
21-Dec-2021
Registration No
3/2021
Registration Date
21-Dec-2021
Court
Gogri Civil Division
Judge
1-Sub Judge - I
Last updated 06-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.NAGESHWAR PRASAD MANDAL
Adv. ANANT PRASAD
Respondent(s)
-
1.SRI NANDAN YADAV AND OTHERS
-
2.Nandan Yadav
-
3.Balram Yadav
Case History
-
08-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
10-Jun-2026
Arguments
Sub Judge - I
-
08-Jun-2026
Arguments
Sub Judge - I
-
02-Jun-2026
Arguments
Sub Judge - I
-
27-Apr-2026
Arguments
Sub Judge - I
-
25-Mar-2026
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
18-Feb-2026
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
19-Jan-2026
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
08-Dec-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
10-Nov-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
17-Sep-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
04-Aug-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
07-Jul-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
23-May-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
19-Apr-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
06-Mar-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
17-Feb-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
31-Jan-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
06-Jan-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
03-Dec-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
28-Oct-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
21-Sep-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
07-Sep-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
21-Aug-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
27-Jun-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge - I
-
04-Jun-2024
Hearing
Sub Judge - I
-
10-May-2024
Hearing
Sub Judge - I
-
30-Apr-2024
Hearing
Sub Judge - I
-
21-Feb-2024
Hearing
Sub Judge - I
-
05-Feb-2024
Restored
Sub Judge - I
-
05-Feb-2024
Hearing
Sub Judge - I
-
06-Jun-2023
JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: Money Suit No. 3 of 2021 Outcome: Suit dismissed without cost. Plaintiff paid Rs. 11,00,000 as advance for purchasing defendants' property, claiming he was assured the land bordered a road. Upon discovering another person's land lay between his plot and the road, he sought refund. Though defendants later executed a compromise agreement promising refund, Defendant No. 1 never signed it—only Defendant No. 2 signed as witness. The court held that since the karta's (family head's) authority cannot be delegated to junior family members, and the refund agreement was unsigned by Defendant No. 1, the plaintiff's cause of action failed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Jun-2023
Disposed
Sub Judge - I
-
30-May-2023
Judgement
Sub Judge - I
-
12-May-2023
Arguments
Sub Judge - I
-
09-May-2023
Arguments
Sub Judge - I
-
18-Apr-2023
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
03-Apr-2023
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
21-Mar-2023
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
17-Mar-2023
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
15-Mar-2023
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
09-Feb-2023
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
20-Jan-2023
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
19-Jan-2023
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
12-Jan-2023
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
17-Dec-2022
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
07-Dec-2022
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
14-Nov-2022
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
14-Oct-2022
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
25-Aug-2022
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
21-Jul-2022
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
24-Jun-2022
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
27-May-2022
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
29-Apr-2022
Appearence
Sub Judge - I
-
31-Mar-2022
OrderView PDF
-
31-Mar-2022
Hearing
Sub Judge - I
-
10-Mar-2022
Hearing
Sub Judge - I
-
24-Feb-2022
Hearing
Sub Judge - I
-
31-Jan-2022
OrderView PDF
-
31-Jan-2022
Hearing
Sub Judge - I
-
11-Jan-2022
Hearing
Sub Judge - I
-
05-Jan-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Dec-2021
Case filed
Registration No. 3/2021
Case Summary: Money Suit No. 3 of 2021 Outcome: Suit dismissed without cost. Plaintiff paid Rs. 11,00,000 as advance for purchasing defendants' property, claiming he was assured the land bordered a road. Upon discovering another person's land lay between his plot and the road, he sought refund. Though defendants later executed a compromise agreement promising refund, Defendant No. 1 never signed it—only Defendant No. 2 signed as witness. The court held that since the karta's (family head's) authority cannot be delegated to junior family members, and the refund agreement was unsigned by Defendant No. 1, the plaintiff's cause of action failed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts