SHEKH SHAHID AND OTHER vs SHEKH BAHRAM AND OTHERS — 44/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 29th April 2026.
Partion Suit - TITLE PARTITION SUIT
CNR: BRWC220001462021
Filing Number
146/2021
Filing Date
10-09-2021
Registration No
44/2021
Registration Date
10-09-2021
Court
Narkatiaganj Civil Division
Judge
3-Sub -Judge- II-Cum A.C.J.M
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHEKH SHAHID AND OTHER
Adv. SHEO NARAIN PRASAD
SHEKH MAHID
Respondent(s)
SHEKH BAHRAM AND OTHERS
SHEKH SERAJ
SK SARFARAJ
BIBI RAUSHAN ARA
BIBI YUGNI ARA
SK AJMULLAH
MUNNI BEGUM
JHUNNI BEGUM
NOORJAHAN BEGUM
ASROON NESHA
SABROON NESHA
SHAHJAHAN BEGUM
ALIMUN KHATOON
JHALIMUN KHATOON
SHEKH HASMUDDIN
SHEKH RAJJAK
Adv. ASHWANI RAMAN
SHEKH SALLI
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Sub -Judge- II-Cum A.C.J.M
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 30-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 12-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 19-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 44/2021 The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for partition of disputed agricultural land totaling 1 bigha 11 kattha 5 dhur located in Moza-Barwa, Bihar. The judge found that the plaintiffs failed to establish joint ownership and possession of the land among all parties, as they could not adequately prove their claims through documentary evidence (particularly regarding property acquired by one co-owner through separate purchase) and could not make necessary co-owners parties to the suit. The case was dismissed as defective for want of proper parties and insufficient proof of claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 44/2021 The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for partition of disputed agricultural land totaling 1 bigha 11 kattha 5 dhur located in Moza-Barwa, Bihar. The judge found that the plaintiffs failed to establish joint ownership and possession of the land among all parties, as they could not adequately prove their claims through documentary evidence (particularly regarding property acquired by one co-owner through separate purchase) and could not make necessary co-owners parties to the suit. The case was dismissed as defective for want of proper parties and insufficient proof of claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts