moolchand vs hanuman Advocate - Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma — 64/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section cpc. Disposed: Contested--Disposed otherwise on 22nd May 2026.
Civil Misc. Connected (41) - CIVIL MISC (C)
CNR: RJAL240001522025
Filing Number
152/2025
Filing Date
19-12-2025
Registration No
64/2025
Registration Date
19-12-2025
Court
CJ JD Thanagazi
Judge
1-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
22nd May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed otherwise
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
moolchand
Adv. Sh. D.P. Dixit
Respondent(s)
hanuman Advocate - Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma
umesh
Adv. Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Awaiting Report
Awaiting Report
Awaiting Report
Awaiting Report
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 14-05-2026 | Awaiting Report |
| 13-05-2026 | Awaiting Report |
| 02-05-2026 | Awaiting Report |
| 18-04-2026 | Awaiting Report |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 64/2025 Moolchand v. Hanuman & Others The court granted the petitioner's interim injunction petition, restraining the respondents from carrying out any construction work on the disputed shared property in village Pratapgarh. The court found that the petitioner established prima facie rights to the shared common land, noting the property is ancestral with equal rights among all family members. The court rejected the respondents' claims of adverse possession on public-use land, applying judicial precedent against conferring adverse possession rights on properties dedicated to communal use. The respondents were directed to maintain the status quo until the main case is disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 64/2025 Moolchand v. Hanuman & Others The court granted the petitioner's interim injunction petition, restraining the respondents from carrying out any construction work on the disputed shared property in village Pratapgarh. The court found that the petitioner established prima facie rights to the shared common land, noting the property is ancestral with equal rights among all family members. The court rejected the respondents' claims of adverse possession on public-use land, applying judicial precedent against conferring adverse possession rights on properties dedicated to communal use. The respondents were directed to maintain the status quo until the main case is disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts