Yashodamma vs Gowramma — 77/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 16th April 2026.

Case disposed

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KARN210005082023

Filing Number

78/2023

Filing Date

11-Apr-2023

Registration No

77/2023

Registration Date

11-Apr-2023

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA

Judge

1564-Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

Decision Date

16-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Yashodamma

    Adv. DILIP KUMAR

  2. 2.Sandya.N

  3. 3.Sagar.N

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Gowramma

  2. 2.Ravikumar.M.R

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Apr-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: O.S./77/2023 Court Decision: The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering defendants to execute a sale deed for the property within two months upon receipt of the balance sale consideration. The plaintiffs must deposit the remaining amount (₹1,00,000) with the court within 30 days. Key Reasoning: The court found that the defendants had validly executed a registered sale agreement dated 22.12.2017 and received substantial advance payment of ₹5,00,000, which effectively admitted the contract's existence. Since the defendants received the substantial consideration, no further proof was required from the plaintiffs under Supreme Court precedent. The defendants' failure to file a written statement and cross-examine witnesses left the plaintiffs' evidence unchallenged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    Judgments

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Judgments

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  6. 03-Mar-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  7. 03-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  8. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence.

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  9. 12-Jan-2026

    Summons

    Addl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  10. 10-Nov-2025

    Summons

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  11. 01-Sep-2025

    Summons

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  12. 28-Jun-2025

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  13. 28-Apr-2025

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  14. 14-Mar-2025

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  15. 12-Mar-2025

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  16. 24-Feb-2025

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  17. 09-Dec-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  18. 09-Dec-2024

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  19. 25-Sep-2024

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  20. 03-Jul-2024

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  21. 23-Feb-2024

    Evidence.

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  22. 16-Jan-2024

    Written Statement

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  23. 21-Nov-2023

    Notice

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  24. 25-Sep-2023

    Notice

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  25. 29-Aug-2023

    Summons

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  26. 05-Jul-2023

    Summons

    Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC

  27. 11-Apr-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 11-Apr-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 77/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: O.S./77/2023 Court Decision: The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering defendants to execute a sale deed for the property within two months upon receipt of the balance sale consideration. The plaintiffs must deposit the remaining amount (₹1,00,000) with the court within 30 days. Key Reasoning: The court found that the defendants had validly executed a registered sale agreement dated 22.12.2017 and received substantial advance payment of ₹5,00,000, which effectively admitted the contract's existence. Since the defendants received the substantial consideration, no further proof was required from the plaintiffs under Supreme Court precedent. The defendants' failure to file a written statement and cross-examine witnesses left the plaintiffs' evidence unchallenged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case