Gopal Jee vs Niranjan Singh — 111/2019

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Status: Appearence. Next hearing: 19th May 2026.

Appearence Next hearing 19-May-2026

Title Suit

CNR: BRBJ120001272019

Filing Number

127/2019

Filing Date

01-May-2019

Registration No

111/2019

Registration Date

01-May-2019

Court

Jagdishpur Civil Division

Judge

2-Munsif

Last updated 25-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 151

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Gopal Jee

    Adv. Dharmesh Kumar Singh

  2. 2.Govindjee Singh

  3. 3.Baliram Singh

  4. 4.Om Prakasd Singh

  5. 5.Pradeep Kumar

  6. 6.Rima Kunwar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Niranjan Singh

  2. 2.Jitendra Singh

  3. 3.Birendra Singh

  4. 4.Surendra Singh

  5. 5.Devendra Singh

  6. 6.Satyendra Singh

Case History

  1. 19-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Appearence

    Munsif

  3. 06-Jan-2026

    Appearence

    Munsif

  4. 20-Nov-2025

    Appearence

    Munsif

  5. 18-Sep-2025

    Appearence

    Munsif

  6. 11-Jul-2025

    Appearence

    Munsif

  7. 09-Jun-2025

    Appearence

    Munsif

  8. 16-May-2025

    Appearence

    Munsif

  9. 21-Mar-2025

    Appearence

    Munsif

  10. 12-Feb-2025

    Appearence

    Munsif

  11. 06-Feb-2025

    Appearence

    Munsif

  12. 10-Dec-2024

    Appearence

    Munsif

  13. 23-Sep-2024

    Appearence

    Munsif

  14. 09-Aug-2024

    Appearence

    Munsif

  15. 07-Jun-2024

    Appearence

    Munsif

  16. 02-May-2024

    Appearence

    Munsif

  17. 14-Mar-2024

    Appearence

    Munsif

  18. 13-Feb-2024

    Appearence

    Munsif

  19. 08-Dec-2023

    Appearence

    Munsif

  20. 24-Nov-2023

    Appearence

    Munsif

  21. 18-Oct-2023

    Appearence

    Munsif

  22. 18-Oct-2023

    Restored

    Munsif

  23. 18-Oct-2019

    JudgmentView PDF

    Court Order Summary Case: Hakiyat Vaad (Property Dispute) No. 111/2019, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagdishpur, Bhojpur, Bihar Date of Order: 18 October 2019 Outcome: The petition filed by Gopal Ji Varish (plaintiff) against six defendants is allowed. The court declared that the disputed land is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and he has legitimate rights and possession over it. The court ruled that any deed or document executed by the defendants claiming ownership is void and fraudulent. The plaintiff is granted full rights to recover possession if unlawfully dispossessed by defendants, and defendants are permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession or rights over the disputed land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  24. 18-Oct-2019

    Disposed

    Munsif

  25. 04-Oct-2019

    Judgement

    Munsif

  26. 01-Oct-2019

    Judgement

    Munsif

  27. 30-Sep-2019

    Appearence

    Munsif

  28. 26-Sep-2019

    Appearence

    Munsif

  29. 23-Sep-2019

    Appearence

    Munsif

  30. 17-Sep-2019

    Appearence

    Munsif

  31. 01-Aug-2019

    addmission

    Munsif

  32. 08-Jul-2019

    addmission

    Munsif

  33. 21-Jun-2019

    addmission

    Munsif

  34. 11-Jun-2019

    addmission

    Munsif

  35. 08-May-2019

    addmission

    Munsif

  36. 06-May-2019

    addmission

    Munsif

  37. 03-May-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  38. 01-May-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 111/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Court Order Summary Case: Hakiyat Vaad (Property Dispute) No. 111/2019, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagdishpur, Bhojpur, Bihar Date of Order: 18 October 2019 Outcome: The petition filed by Gopal Ji Varish (plaintiff) against six defendants is allowed. The court declared that the disputed land is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and he has legitimate rights and possession over it. The court ruled that any deed or document executed by the defendants claiming ownership is void and fraudulent. The plaintiff is granted full rights to recover possession if unlawfully dispossessed by defendants, and defendants are permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession or rights over the disputed land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case