Beluru Kotrappa S/o Late Siddalinganagouda vs Channabasappa S/o Late Tirukappa — 53/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order,7,Rule,1,and,2. Disposed: Contested--DECREED OTHERWISE on 06th March 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAVN310012272021
Filing Number
53/2021
Filing Date
19-07-2021
Registration No
53/2021
Registration Date
19-07-2021
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI
Judge
1213-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Beluru Kotrappa S/o Late Siddalinganagouda
Adv. D.Siddanagouda
Respondent(s)
Channabasappa S/o Late Tirukappa
Hearing History
Judge: 1213-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT
Disposed
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-02-2026 | JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER |
| 30-01-2026 | JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER |
| 23-01-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 09-01-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Huvinahadagali Senior Civil Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a property sale contract, holding that the defendant validly agreed to sell property for ₹6 lakhs (with ₹5 lakhs advance received) based on the registered sale agreement, credible witness testimony, and documentary evidence. The defendant's alternative claim that only ₹1 lakh was borrowed as a loan was rejected as implausible and inconsistent, given his education level and the registered agreement's clear terms; he must now execute the sale deed within two months upon receiving the remaining ₹1 lakh consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The Huvinahadagali Senior Civil Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a property sale contract, holding that the defendant validly agreed to sell property for ₹6 lakhs (with ₹5 lakhs advance received) based on the registered sale agreement, credible witness testimony, and documentary evidence. The defendant's alternative claim that only ₹1 lakh was borrowed as a loan was rejected as implausible and inconsistent, given his education level and the registered agreement's clear terms; he must now execute the sale deed within two months upon receiving the remaining ₹1 lakh consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts