Mamta Naresh Gupta vs Sunita Niraj Gupta Advocate - Agrawal R.B. — 137/2024
Case under Indian Succession Act Section 383. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 06th April 2026.
Civil M.A.
CNR: MHAK110008372024
Next Hearing
06th April 2026
e-Filing Number
09-07-2024
Filing Number
196/2024
Filing Date
11-07-2024
Registration No
137/2024
Registration Date
11-07-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Telhara
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Telhara
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mamta Naresh Gupta
Adv. Kakad A.R.
Yuvraj Naresh Gupta
Adv. Kakad A.R.
Ku Shruti Naresh Gupta
Adv. Kakad A.R.
Respondent(s)
Sunita Niraj Gupta Advocate - Agrawal R.B.
Lalita Shashikant Gupta
Adv. Agrawal R.B.
Jyoti Gajanan Gupta
Adv. Agrawal R.B.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Telhara
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Issues |
| 06-02-2026 | Issues |
| 16-01-2026 | Issues |
| 22-12-2025 | Issues |
| 15-11-2025 | Issues |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: The Joint Civil Judge rejected the preliminary objection raised by non-applicant no.3 in a petition by Mamta Gupta seeking revocation of a legal heirship certificate granted to Sunita Gupta. The court held that the revocation application is maintainable under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, since the applicants alleged concealment of material facts amounting to fraud. The court also determined that the limitation issue cannot be dismissed at the preliminary stage, as Section 17 of the Limitation Act applies when fraud is claimed, making the knowledge of fraud the crucial factor in determining the limitation period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: The Joint Civil Judge rejected the preliminary objection raised by non-applicant no.3 in a petition by Mamta Gupta seeking revocation of a legal heirship certificate granted to Sunita Gupta. The court held that the revocation application is maintainable under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, since the applicants alleged concealment of material facts amounting to fraud. The court also determined that the limitation issue cannot be dismissed at the preliminary stage, as Section 17 of the Limitation Act applies when fraud is claimed, making the knowledge of fraud the crucial factor in determining the limitation period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts