Abilash S/o Rameshrao, Age 9 Yrs,U/G Mother name Surekha W/o Rameshrao, Age 36 Yrs, Occ Agri vs Diliparao S/o Kishtappa @ Kishtachari (died ) — 19/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section u/s,96,R/w,U/o,41,Rule,1,and,2,of,CPC. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

R.A. - Regular Appeals

CNR: KAYG010016562021

Filing Number

23/2021

Filing Date

08-Dec-2021

Registration No

19/2022

Registration Date

11-Aug-2022

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIR

Judge

936-Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 08-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section u/s,96,R/w,U/o,41,Rule,1,and,2,of,CPC

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Abilash S/o Rameshrao, Age 9 Yrs,U/G Mother name Surekha W/o Rameshrao, Age 36 Yrs, Occ Agri

    Adv. Sri Gurunathreddy Panel Advocate

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Diliparao S/o Kishtappa @ Kishtachari (died )

  2. 2.Ramesh S/o Narayanrao Kulkarni, Age 42 Yrs, Occ Agri

  3. 3.Laxmikantrao S/o Narayanrao Kulkarni, Age 65 Yrs, Occ Agri

  4. 4.Bhimshenrao S/o Narayanrao, Age 45 Yrs, Occ Agri

  5. 5.Madhusudanroa S/o Seetaramrao, Age 62 Yrs, Occ Agri

  6. 6.Sureshrao S/o Seetaramrao, Age 54 Yrs, Occ Agri

  7. 7.Ashokrao S/o Seetaramrao, Age 52 Yrs, Occ Agri

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The Principal District Judge of Yadgir dismissed the appeal filed by a minor defendant challenging a trial court's decree for specific performance of a property sale agreement. The court found that defendants 1-6 had validly executed a registered agreement to sell jointly-owned agricultural property for Rs. 9,60,000 and received full consideration, establishing the plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance despite the minor defendant's claim to a 1/3 share in the joint family property. The appellate court upheld the trial judge's findings, confirming the decree with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  4. 26-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  5. 07-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  6. 05-Jan-2026

    Arguments-CIVIL

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  7. 16-Dec-2025

    A.D.R.-CIVIL

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  8. 21-Nov-2025

    A.D.R.-CIVIL

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  9. 14-Oct-2025

    A.D.R.-CIVIL

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  10. 05-Aug-2025

    A.D.R.-CIVIL

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  11. 07-Jul-2025

    Arguments-CIVIL

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  12. 02-Jun-2025

    Arguments-CIVIL

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  13. 27-Feb-2025

    Arguments-CIVIL

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  14. 27-Jan-2025

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  15. 05-Dec-2024

    Notice

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  16. 16-Oct-2024

    Notice

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  17. 12-Sep-2024

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  18. 09-Aug-2024

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  19. 07-Jun-2024

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  20. 01-Apr-2024

    Summons

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  21. 21-Feb-2024

    Notice

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  22. 07-Oct-2023

    Notice

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge,yadgir

  23. 24-Jun-2023

    Notice

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  24. 05-Apr-2023

    Notice

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  25. 05-Jan-2023

    Notice

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge Yadgir

  26. 19-Nov-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 08-Dec-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 19/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Principal District Judge of Yadgir dismissed the appeal filed by a minor defendant challenging a trial court's decree for specific performance of a property sale agreement. The court found that defendants 1-6 had validly executed a registered agreement to sell jointly-owned agricultural property for Rs. 9,60,000 and received full consideration, establishing the plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance despite the minor defendant's claim to a 1/3 share in the joint family property. The appellate court upheld the trial judge's findings, confirming the decree with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case