MANGAL SAIN vs MANOJ KUMAR — 503/2022
Case under Possession and Recovery of Rent/damages/mesne Profit Section 80. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 19th March 2026.
CS - CIVIL SUIT FOR DJ ADJ
CNR: DLET010101172022
Filing Number
6483/2022
Filing Date
24-09-2022
Registration No
503/2022
Registration Date
24-09-2022
Court
District and Sessions Judge, East, KKD
Judge
49-District Judge
Decision Date
19th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MANGAL SAIN
Adv. BILAL AHMAD
Respondent(s)
MANOJ KUMAR
SMT. SUNITA
Hearing History
Judge: 49-District Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Final Arguments
Final Arguments
Final Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 14-03-2026 | Final Arguments |
| 10-03-2026 | Final Arguments |
| 28-01-2026 | Final Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Mangal Sain v. Manoj Kumar & Smt. Sunita (CS 503/2022) The Delhi District Court decreed the suit for recovery of possession, finding that plaintiff (now deceased) was the absolute owner of a 50 sq. yard property and allowed defendants (his younger brother and sister-in-law) as licensees, not co-owners. The court rejected defendants' claim that a 2015 family settlement (Panchnama) partitioned the property, holding the unregistered document could not create ownership rights and was invalid as it involved a living person's property without proper legal transfer. The court awarded plaintiff's legal representatives possession, monthly damages of ₹10,000 from August 2022 onward, outstanding utility charges, and a permanent injunction restraining defendants from selling or transferring the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Mangal Sain v. Manoj Kumar & Smt. Sunita (CS 503/2022) The Delhi District Court decreed the suit for recovery of possession, finding that plaintiff (now deceased) was the absolute owner of a 50 sq. yard property and allowed defendants (his younger brother and sister-in-law) as licensees, not co-owners. The court rejected defendants' claim that a 2015 family settlement (Panchnama) partitioned the property, holding the unregistered document could not create ownership rights and was invalid as it involved a living person's property without proper legal transfer. The court awarded plaintiff's legal representatives possession, monthly damages of ₹10,000 from August 2022 onward, outstanding utility charges, and a permanent injunction restraining defendants from selling or transferring the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts