Bharat vs Narayan Prasad Advocate - A.G., ,Virendra Verma,Kanhaiya Ram Yadav,Kanhaiya Ram Yadav,ANURAG BAJPAI,CHANDRIKADITYA PANDEY — SA/418/2017

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 27-Sep-2017

CNR: CGHC010135612017

Filing Number

SA/15499/2017

Filing Date

19-Jun-2017

Registration No

SA/418/2017

Registration Date

03-Jul-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

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 22-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Bharat

    Adv. S.P. SAHU,Amit Kumar Sahu,Amit Kumar Sahu, ,RAJKUMAR PALI,Amit Kumar Sahu

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Narayan Prasad Advocate - A.G., ,Virendra Verma,Kanhaiya Ram Yadav,Kanhaiya Ram Yadav,ANURAG BAJPAI,CHANDRIKADITYA PANDEY

  2. 2.Vikas Kumar

  3. 3.Ku. Radhika

  4. 4.Yogeshwar Rajsingh

  5. 5.Shatruhan

  6. 6.Bhaktin

  7. 7.Shanti Bai

  8. 8.Arjun Singh

  9. 9.Anusuiya Bai

  10. 10.Purnima

  11. 11.Baishakhin Bai

  12. 12.Kanhaiya Singh

  13. 13.Smt. Shashiprabha Devi

  14. 14.Smt. Twarika Devi @ Vasundhara

  15. 15.Ashwani Kumar Dubey

  16. 16.Naresh Chandrawanshi

  17. 17.Dheeraj Prasad

  18. 18.Smt. Kaushilya Bai

  19. 19.Smt. Manjari Devi

  20. 20.The State Of Chhattisgarh,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

    SUMMARY The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed three connected second appeals challenging a lower court's judgment in a property dispute involving tribal land. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the original plaintiff (Kanwal's heir) was entitled to ownership of 1.81 acres of land because: (1) the land was legally transferred to Vijay Singh, who later became an adult; (2) the 1987 mutation transferring the property to Badra Bai lacked valid legal documentation and violated succession law by favoring a second-class heir over the brother; and (3) the appellants failed to prove adverse possession or valid title. The court found no substantial question of law warranting interference with concurrent findings of the lower courts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

  4. 13-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

  5. 27-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

  6. 27-Mar-2026

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

  7. 09-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

  8. 09-Mar-2026

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

  9. 04-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

  10. 22-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

  11. 22-Jan-2026

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

  12. 14-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF

  13. 28-Nov-2025

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

  14. 25-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF

  15. 25-Nov-2025

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

  16. 31-Oct-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF

  17. 17-Sep-2025

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

  18. 12-Aug-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF

  19. 12-Aug-2025

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

  20. 01-Jul-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF

  21. 01-Jul-2025

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

  22. 05-May-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF

  23. 05-May-2025

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

  24. 24-Apr-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF

  25. 24-Apr-2025

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

  26. 11-Apr-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF

  27. 11-Apr-2025

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

  28. 08-Apr-2025

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

  29. 07-Apr-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF

  30. 01-Apr-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF

  31. 01-Apr-2025

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

  32. 11-Mar-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF

  33. 11-Mar-2025

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

  34. 25-Feb-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF

  35. 17-Feb-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar TiwariView PDF

  36. 20-Dec-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh RajputView PDF

  37. 18-Nov-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh RajputView PDF

  38. 06-Dec-2017

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay AgrawalView PDF

  39. 06-Dec-2017

    Motion Hearing Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal

  40. 27-Sep-2017

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay AgrawalView PDF

  41. 27-Sep-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  42. 05-Jul-2017

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Dilip Raosaheb DeshmukhView PDF

  43. 19-Jun-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. SA/418/2017

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed three connected second appeals challenging a lower court's judgment in a property dispute involving tribal land. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the original plaintiff (Kanwal's heir) was entitled to ownership of 1.81 acres of land because: (1) the land was legally transferred to Vijay Singh, who later became an adult; (2) the 1987 mutation transferring the property to Badra Bai lacked valid legal documentation and violated succession law by favoring a second-class heir over the brother; and (3) the appellants failed to prove adverse possession or valid title. The court found no substantial question of law warranting interference with concurrent findings of the lower courts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case