Yogeswar Raj Singh vs Narayan Prasad Shukla (Died and Deleted) Advocate - A.G., ,ANURAG BAJPAI,Kanhaiya Ram Yadav,CHANDRIKADITYA PANDEY,CHANDRIKADITYA PANDEY,Virendra Verma — SA/307/2017
Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 15th April 2026.
CNR: CGHC010198142017
Filing Number
SA/12266/2017
Filing Date
05-May-2017
Registration No
SA/307/2017
Registration Date
06-May-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
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 22-May-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Yogeswar Raj Singh
Adv. MALAY SHRIVASTAVA,JYOTI RATHORE,JYOTI RATHORE, ,GAGAN TIWARI,JYOTI RATHORE
Respondent(s)
-
1.Narayan Prasad Shukla (Died and Deleted) Advocate - A.G., ,ANURAG BAJPAI,Kanhaiya Ram Yadav,CHANDRIKADITYA PANDEY,CHANDRIKADITYA PANDEY,Virendra Verma
-
2.Vikas Kumar
-
3.Kumari Radhika
-
4.Bharat
-
5.Shatrughan
-
6.Bhaktin
-
7.Shanti Bai
-
8.Arjun Singh
-
9.Anusuiya Bai
-
10.Purnima
-
11.Baishakhin Bai
-
12.Kaniya Singh
-
13.Smt. Shashiprabha Devi (Died and Deleted)
-
14.Smt. Manjari Devi
-
15.Smt. Twarika Devi @ Vasudhara
-
16.Ashwani Kumar Dubey
-
17.Naresh Chandravanshi (Died through Lrs.)(Legal Heir)17.
-
18.Padma Chandravanshi17.
-
19.Dr. Swati Chandravanshi17.
-
20.piyush Chandravanshi17.
-
21.Prafulla Chandravanshi
-
22.Dheeraj Prasad
-
23.Smt. Kausilya Bai
-
24.State Of Chhattisgarh,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF
Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed three Second Appeals filed by defendants/appellants challenging a lower court's judgment in a land ownership dispute. The court held that the original owner Vijay Singh's property should have devolved to his brother Kanwal (first-class heir) rather than his aunt Badra Bai (second-class heir) through an unlawful 1987 mutation. The concurrent findings of both lower courts were upheld as they were not perverse, and no substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC was identified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Apr-2026
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
-
13-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF
-
27-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF
-
27-Mar-2026
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
-
09-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF
-
09-Mar-2026
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
-
04-Feb-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF
-
22-Jan-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF
-
22-Jan-2026
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
-
14-Jan-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF
-
28-Nov-2025
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
-
25-Nov-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF
-
25-Nov-2025
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
-
31-Oct-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF
-
17-Sep-2025
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
-
12-Aug-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF
-
12-Aug-2025
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
-
01-Jul-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF
-
01-Jul-2025
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
-
18-May-2025
Motion Hearing Matters ( Dormant Case )
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
-
05-May-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF
-
05-May-2025
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
-
24-Apr-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF
-
24-Apr-2025
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
-
11-Apr-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF
-
11-Apr-2025
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
-
08-Apr-2025
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
-
07-Apr-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF
-
01-Apr-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF
-
01-Apr-2025
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
-
11-Mar-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF
-
11-Mar-2025
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
-
25-Feb-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF
-
17-Feb-2025
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar TiwariView PDF
-
20-Dec-2024
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh RajputView PDF
-
18-Nov-2024
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh RajputView PDF
-
01-Nov-2023
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF
-
01-Nov-2023
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
-
26-Sep-2023
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar VyasView PDF
-
08-Dec-2017
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay AgrawalView PDF
-
08-Dec-2017
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal
-
31-Oct-2017
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay AgrawalView PDF
-
31-Oct-2017
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal
-
14-Sep-2017
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal
-
11-Sep-2017
Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Dilip Raosaheb DeshmukhView PDF
-
30-Aug-2017
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay AgrawalView PDF
-
30-Aug-2017
Motion Hearing Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal
-
01-Aug-2017
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay AgrawalView PDF
-
01-Aug-2017
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-May-2017
Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Dilip Raosaheb DeshmukhView PDF
-
05-May-2017
Case filed
Registration No. SA/307/2017
Summary: The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed three Second Appeals filed by defendants/appellants challenging a lower court's judgment in a land ownership dispute. The court held that the original owner Vijay Singh's property should have devolved to his brother Kanwal (first-class heir) rather than his aunt Badra Bai (second-class heir) through an unlawful 1987 mutation. The concurrent findings of both lower courts were upheld as they were not perverse, and no substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC was identified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts