MD. NASHIM AND 7 OHTERS vs BABLOO AND 41 OTHERS — 189/2014
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: ISSUES. Next hearing: 09th July 2026.
Title Suit (SubJudge)
CNR: BRPU220000412014
Next Hearing
09th July 2026
Filing Number
189/2014
Filing Date
02-06-2014
Registration No
189/2014
Registration Date
02-06-2014
Court
Dhamdaha Civil Division
Judge
1-Subjudge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MD. NASHIM AND 7 OHTERS
Respondent(s)
BABLOO AND 41 OTHERS
OJRA KHATOON, W/o- LATE MD SAMSHAD
JENAB, D/o- LATE MD SAMSHAD
SEBI, D/o- LATE MD SAMSHAD
CHHOTI, D/o- LATE MD SAMSHAD
CHANDNI, D/o- LATE MD SAMSHAD
CHAND, S/o- LATE MD SAMSHAD
KASIF, S/o- LATE MD SAMSHAD
ASIF, S/o- LATE MD SAMSAD
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Subjudge
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-06-2026 | ISSUES |
| 22-05-2026 | ISSUES |
| 16-03-2026 | ISSUES |
| 30-01-2026 | ISSUES |
| 03-12-2025 | ISSUES |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 189/2014 Outcome: The petition is disposed of with directions to parties. The court addressed a property dispute involving conflicting claims over land registered under Document No. 5844 (1962). The respondents claimed ownership based on ancestral rights and prior registered deeds, while the petitioners asserted claims based on subsequent transactions. The court found that the respondents' third and second wills established clear ownership and that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claims adequately. The court directed that if the respondents' disputed property is to be disturbed through an appeal under Civil Suit 332/96, proper legal procedures must be followed and the matter cannot be resolved unilaterally. The court emphasized that protection of disputed property and adherence to established legal procedures are mandatory. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 189/2014 Outcome: The petition is disposed of with directions to parties. The court addressed a property dispute involving conflicting claims over land registered under Document No. 5844 (1962). The respondents claimed ownership based on ancestral rights and prior registered deeds, while the petitioners asserted claims based on subsequent transactions. The court found that the respondents' third and second wills established clear ownership and that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claims adequately. The court directed that if the respondents' disputed property is to be disturbed through an appeal under Civil Suit 332/96, proper legal procedures must be followed and the matter cannot be resolved unilaterally. The court emphasized that protection of disputed property and adherence to established legal procedures are mandatory. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts