Kalyani Devi vs Kishan Lal — 439/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section CPC. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 23rd March 2026.
C S - Civil Suit
CNR: RJAL240000672016
Filing Number
836/2016
Filing Date
21-03-2016
Registration No
439/2016
Registration Date
21-03-2016
Court
CJ JD Thanagazi
Judge
1-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kalyani Devi
Adv. Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma
Respondent(s)
Kishan Lal
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 10-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 23-02-2026 | Final arguments |
| 05-02-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 439/2016 - Summary Kalyani Devi v. Kishan Lal (Civil Judge, Thanagazi, Alwar) The court dismissed Kalyani Devi's suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction over half a disputed agricultural plot in Kalod village. The court found that Kalyani Devi failed to substantiate her claim of exclusive ownership of the disputed half-share, as she produced only an unregistered deed and could not establish clear possession independent of the defendants. The court held that the defendants had been in continuous possession and control of the entire property, and rejected the petitioner's allegations that they had wrongfully constructed structures on her alleged portion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 439/2016 - Summary Kalyani Devi v. Kishan Lal (Civil Judge, Thanagazi, Alwar) The court dismissed Kalyani Devi's suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction over half a disputed agricultural plot in Kalod village. The court found that Kalyani Devi failed to substantiate her claim of exclusive ownership of the disputed half-share, as she produced only an unregistered deed and could not establish clear possession independent of the defendants. The court held that the defendants had been in continuous possession and control of the entire property, and rejected the petitioner's allegations that they had wrongfully constructed structures on her alleged portion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts