ASHOK KUMAR vs MANJU AND ANR — 38/2026

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

Case disposed

CS - CIVIL SUIT FOR DJ ADJ

CNR: DLNE010002732026

e-Filing Number

28-01-2026

Filing Number

142/2026

Filing Date

28-Jan-2026

Registration No

38/2026

Registration Date

02-Feb-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, North-East, KKD

Judge

429-District Judge

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--REJECTED

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Suit for Declaration Section cpc

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ASHOK KUMAR

    Adv. Rajesh Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MANJU AND ANR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

    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.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 04-Feb-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  5. 04-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 28-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 38/2026

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case