RAMATHAL AND ORS. vs K.RAJAMANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND ANR. — C.A. No. 8830/2012
Case under Section XII-B. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010200072009
Filing Date
08-Jul-2009
Registration No
C.A. No. 8830/2012
Diary Number
20007/2009
Order Date
17-Aug-2023
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Neutral Citation
2023 INSC 737
Disposal Type
Appeals Allowed
Last updated 05-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAMATHAL AND ORS.
Adv. NISHE RAJEN SHONKER
Respondent(s)
-
1.K.RAJAMANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND ANR.
Adv. K. K. MANI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Aug-2023
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Aug-2023
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Aug-2023
After Week/Month/Vacation
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
-
20-Jul-2023
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Jul-2023
After Week/Month/Vacation
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
-
01-Sep-2022
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Sep-2022
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar
-
11-Sep-2019
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Sep-2019
IA
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
-
12-Dec-2018
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Dec-2018
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Apr-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Apr-2015
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Apr-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Dec-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Jan-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Nov-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Dec-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Nov-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Oct-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
31-Jul-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Jul-2009
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 8830/2012
-
[ 2023 INSC 737 ]
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
Summary of C.A. No. 008830/2012: Ramathal v. K. Rajamani The Supreme Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal and held that the plea of *non est factum* (it is not my deed) was valid and proved. Illiterate plaintiffs granted a power of attorney to an attorney solely to develop their 110-cent land into plots; the attorney fraudulently added clauses enabling him to sell and transfer title, then immediately sold the land to his father and brother for grossly undervalued amounts. The Court found the power of attorney void due to fundamental misrepresentation as to its character, not merely contents, and restored the First Appellate Court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts