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.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KARN210005082023
Filing Number
78/2023
Filing Date
11-04-2023
Registration No
77/2023
Registration Date
11-04-2023
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA
Judge
1564-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Yashodamma
Adv. DILIP KUMAR
Sandya.N
Sagar.N
Respondent(s)
Gowramma
Ravikumar.M.R
Hearing History
Judge: 1564-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Disposed
JUDGMENTS
JUDGMENTS
ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 15-04-2026 | JUDGMENTS |
| 13-03-2026 | JUDGMENTS |
| 03-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 17-02-2026 | EVIDENCE. |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
Interim Orders
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts