Lalmuni vs Sahaudra Bai Advocate - G. L. Uike, ,DR. SANJEET SHARMA — SA/21/2017

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 04-Apr-2017

CNR: CGHC010100832017

Filing Number

SA/65/2017

Filing Date

02-Jan-2017

Registration No

SA/21/2017

Registration Date

11-Jan-2017

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL MATTERS ( 17 )

Sub-Category

APPEAL FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION ( 1717 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 22-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Lalmuni

    Adv. Jitendra Kumar Saxena

  2. 2.Rajkishore

  3. 3.Smt. Gulapi Singh (Died and Deleted)

  4. 4.Smt. Bhagwati Singh

  5. 5.Jayshanker Singh

  6. 6.Ku. Chandrakala

  7. 7.Yashwant Singh

  8. 8.Satyadev Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sahaudra Bai Advocate - G. L. Uike, ,DR. SANJEET SHARMA

  2. 2.Saraswati

    Adv. A.G.

  3. 3.Sanmati

  4. 4.Mus. Lalita Bai

  5. 5.Hukumchand Singh

  6. 6.Makund Singh

  7. 7.Shivnath Singh

  8. 8.Uttam Singh

  9. 9.Budhani (Died) through Lrs(Legal Heir)

    Adv. DR. SANJEET SHARMA,G. L. Uike9.

  10. 10.Parmeshwar Singh9.

  11. 11.Rameshwar Singh9.

  12. 12.Harinath Singh

  13. 13.Kishun Ram (Died) through Lrs(Legal Heir)10.

  14. 14.Kunti Bai10.

  15. 15.Rajmati Bai10.

  16. 16.Pramod Singh10.

  17. 17.Raghunandan Singh10.

  18. 18.Pratima Bai

  19. 19.Damodar Ram

  20. 20.State Of Chhattisgarh,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

    Summary: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a second appeal challenging a concurrent finding by two lower courts that ancestral land was jointly owned by family branches without prior partition. The court held that the appellants failed to prove their claimed exclusive title and prior partition through reliable documentary evidence, and found no substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent factual findings based on revenue records and oral testimony supporting joint possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-Apr-2026

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

  5. 20-Apr-2026

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

  6. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

  7. 30-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

  8. 10-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

  9. 03-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

  10. 31-Oct-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF

  11. 13-Apr-2018

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

  12. 19-Feb-2018

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh ChandelView PDF

  13. 19-Feb-2018

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

  14. 07-Dec-2017

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay AgrawalView PDF

  15. 07-Dec-2017

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal

  16. 27-Sep-2017

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay AgrawalView PDF

  17. 27-Sep-2017

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal

  18. 04-Apr-2017

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker DiwakerView PDF

  19. 04-Apr-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  20. 02-Jan-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. SA/21/2017

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a second appeal challenging a concurrent finding by two lower courts that ancestral land was jointly owned by family branches without prior partition. The court held that the appellants failed to prove their claimed exclusive title and prior partition through reliable documentary evidence, and found no substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent factual findings based on revenue records and oral testimony supporting joint possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case