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

Case disposed

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section cpc

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

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

22-05-2026
Judgement

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

CJ JD Thanagazi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case