RADHA DEVI AND OTHERS vs BADAMIYA DEVI AND OTHERS — 19/1978
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 25th March 2026.
Title Suit
CNR: BRBE420000011978
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
19/1978
Filing Date
29-12-2018
Registration No
19/1978
Registration Date
17-05-1978
Court
Teghra Civil Division
Judge
2-Munsif
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RADHA DEVI AND OTHERS
Adv. RAM PRAVESH SINGH
MOST KAUSHALYA DEVI
ARUN SINGH
AVNISH SINGH
Respondent(s)
BADAMIYA DEVI AND OTHERS
KAILU BARHI
BACHCHA BARHI
BAUDHU BARHI
MOST CHANDRAKALA DEVI
BISHUNDEV BARHI
BABUA BARHI
NUNU BARHI
BIHARI BARHI
VISHUNDEV BARHI
SUJIYA DEVI
SUVIDHI DEVI
RAMPRAKASH CHAUDHARY
NARENDRA PR SINGH
VIJAY CHAUDHARY
RAJKUMARI
URMILA DEVI
SANGITA KUMARI
RAMVILASH CHAUDHARY
RAMJI CHAUDHARY
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Munsif
Disposed
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 19-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 18-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 17-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 16-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court allowed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs (Mahesh Singh & others), holding that Ramki Barhi was a bataidar (sharecropper) and not a bhaulidar on bakast (retained) land of the ex-landlord Ayodhya Chaudhary, and therefore the defendants had no valid right to get rent fixed or claim title to the disputed land. The court found that while Section 40 of the Bihar Tenancy Act bars challenges to rent commutation orders, the suit could proceed on title grounds under the Specific Relief Act since the plaintiffs established their superior claim through documentary evidence and rent receipts in their ancestor's name. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court allowed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs (Mahesh Singh & others), holding that Ramki Barhi was a bataidar (sharecropper) and not a bhaulidar on bakast (retained) land of the ex-landlord Ayodhya Chaudhary, and therefore the defendants had no valid right to get rent fixed or claim title to the disputed land. The court found that while Section 40 of the Bihar Tenancy Act bars challenges to rent commutation orders, the suit could proceed on title grounds under the Specific Relief Act since the plaintiffs established their superior claim through documentary evidence and rent receipts in their ancestor's name. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts