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.

Case disposed

Civil Misc. Connected (41) - CIVIL MISC (C)

CNR: RJAL240001522025

Filing Number

152/2025

Filing Date

19-Dec-2025

Registration No

64/2025

Registration Date

19-Dec-2025

Court

CJ JD Thanagazi

Judge

1-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

22-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed otherwise

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section cpc

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.moolchand

    Adv. Sh. D.P. Dixit

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.hanuman Advocate - Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma

  2. 2.umesh

    Adv. Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 22-May-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    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.

  3. 22-May-2026

    Disposed

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  4. 14-May-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  5. 13-May-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  6. 02-May-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  7. 18-Apr-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  8. 13-Apr-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  9. 06-Apr-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  10. 25-Mar-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  11. 16-Mar-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  12. 10-Mar-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  13. 09-Mar-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  14. 25-Feb-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  15. 05-Feb-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  16. 27-Jan-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  17. 21-Jan-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  18. 19-Jan-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  19. 16-Jan-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  20. 15-Jan-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  21. 12-Jan-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  22. 06-Jan-2026

    Awaiting Report

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  23. 05-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 19-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 64/2025

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case