ASHOK KUMAR vs MANJU AND ANR — 38/2026

Case under Suit for Declaration Section cpc. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 16th March 2026.

CS - CIVIL SUIT FOR DJ ADJ

CNR: DLNE010002732026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

28-01-2026

Filing Number

142/2026

Filing Date

28-01-2026

Registration No

38/2026

Registration Date

02-02-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, North-East, KKD

Judge

429-District Judge

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--REJECTED

Acts & Sections

Suit For Declaration Section cpc

Petitioner(s)

ASHOK KUMAR

Adv. Rajesh Kumar

Respondent(s)

MANJU AND ANR

Hearing History

Judge: 429-District Judge

16-03-2026

Disposed

04-02-2026

Misc. cases

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
COPY OF ORDER

Case Summary: The court rejected Ashok Kumar's plaint seeking declaration that partition of inherited property occurred during his mother Krishna Devi's lifetime, entitling him to a half share. The court held that during Krishna Devi's lifetime, her children possessed only a "mere hope of succession" (spes successionis) with no crystallized rights to partition her property, and any occupation of different portions constituted permissive use only. Under Hindu intestacy law, each child was entitled to an equal 1/3 share, not the half-share claimed. The plaint was dismissed as unmaintainable and disclosing no cause of action. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

04-02-2026
COPY OF ORDER
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The court rejected Ashok Kumar's plaint seeking declaration that partition of inherited property occurred during his mother Krishna Devi's lifetime, entitling him to a half share. The court held that during Krishna Devi's lifetime, her children possessed only a "mere hope of succession" (spes successionis) with no crystallized rights to partition her property, and any occupation of different portions constituted permissive use only. Under Hindu intestacy law, each child was entitled to an equal 1/3 share, not the half-share claimed. The plaint was dismissed as unmaintainable and disclosing no cause of action. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Sessions Judge, North-East, KKD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case