Ramkishor vs Kailash — 272/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section CPC. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 16th May 2026.
C S - Civil Suit
CNR: RJAL240001292015
Filing Number
528/2015
Filing Date
16-04-2015
Registration No
272/2015
Registration Date
16-04-2015
Court
CJ JD Thanagazi
Judge
1-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
16th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramkishor
Adv. DP Dixit
Respondent(s)
Kailash
Ramji Lal Sharma
Ramshwroop
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-05-2026 | Final arguments |
| 08-05-2026 | Final arguments |
| 05-05-2026 | Final arguments |
| 29-04-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 272/2015 - Ramkishor v. Kailash and others Court Decision (dated 16.05.2026): The court rejected the petitioner Ramkishor's suit for partition and permanent injunction against defendants Kailash, Ramji Lal Sharma, and Ramswroop. The court found that Ramkishor failed to prove his 1/4 share in the disputed property with credible evidence, while the defendants established their possession and use of the contested house and courtyard. Applying principles of adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1963, the court determined that the defendants' 28 years of open possession extinguished Ramkishor's rights, and his claim was barred by limitation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 272/2015 - Ramkishor v. Kailash and others Court Decision (dated 16.05.2026): The court rejected the petitioner Ramkishor's suit for partition and permanent injunction against defendants Kailash, Ramji Lal Sharma, and Ramswroop. The court found that Ramkishor failed to prove his 1/4 share in the disputed property with credible evidence, while the defendants established their possession and use of the contested house and courtyard. Applying principles of adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1963, the court determined that the defendants' 28 years of open possession extinguished Ramkishor's rights, and his claim was barred by limitation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts