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

Case disposed

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

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC

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

16-04-2026

Disposed

15-04-2026

JUDGMENTS

13-03-2026

JUDGMENTS

03-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

17-02-2026

EVIDENCE.

Final Orders / Judgements

16-04-2026
Judgment

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

09-12-2024
Deposition
03-03-2026
Deposition
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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case