Manjamma vs Gowramma — 8/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

R.A. - Regular Appeals

CNR: KABR210001642022

Filing Number

8/2022

Filing Date

31-Jan-2022

Registration No

8/2022

Registration Date

07-Feb-2022

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL

Judge

1061-II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Manjamma

    Adv. C.Suresha

  2. 2.Bhagya

  3. 3.Muniraju

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Gowramma

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Judgment

    Case Summary: R.A.No.8/2022 Court Decision: The appellate court dismissed the defendants' appeal and upheld the trial court's decree, ordering them to execute a registered sale deed for 10 guntas of land in favor of Gowramma. Key Reasoning: The court found that Ramaiah (the original defendant) executed a valid Sale Agreement and General Power of Attorney on 05.02.1996 for Rs.30,000, received full consideration, and delivered possession. Although revenue records lacked his entry until 2010, the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her obligations. The suit was not barred by limitation as the cause of action arose from the defendant's refusal after revenue entries were corrected in 2010-11, making the subsequent 2012 filing timely. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  6. 10-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  7. 07-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  8. 12-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  9. 12-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  10. 12-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  11. 22-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  12. 16-Jun-2025

    Arguments

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  13. 28-Feb-2025

    Arguments

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  14. 24-Jan-2025

    Arguments

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  15. 26-Sep-2024

    Arguments

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  16. 22-Jul-2024

    Arguments

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  17. 06-Apr-2024

    Arguments

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  18. 30-Mar-2024

    Await Notice

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  19. 18-Mar-2024

    Await Notice

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  20. 15-Dec-2023

    Await Notice

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  21. 31-Aug-2023

    Await Notice

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  22. 06-Jun-2023

    Arguments

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  23. 17-Jan-2023

    Arguments

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  24. 17-Sep-2022

    Arguments

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  25. 13-Sep-2022

    Call On

    II Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  26. 22-Jun-2022

    Hear On IA

    I Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  27. 08-Mar-2022

    Notice

    I Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  28. 28-Feb-2022

    Objections by

    I Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  29. 21-Feb-2022

    Notice

    I Addl Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  30. 08-Feb-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 31-Jan-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 8/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.A.No.8/2022 Court Decision: The appellate court dismissed the defendants' appeal and upheld the trial court's decree, ordering them to execute a registered sale deed for 10 guntas of land in favor of Gowramma. Key Reasoning: The court found that Ramaiah (the original defendant) executed a valid Sale Agreement and General Power of Attorney on 05.02.1996 for Rs.30,000, received full consideration, and delivered possession. Although revenue records lacked his entry until 2010, the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her obligations. The suit was not barred by limitation as the cause of action arose from the defendant's refusal after revenue entries were corrected in 2010-11, making the subsequent 2012 filing timely. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case