Badam Bai vs Sawita Bai Advocate - Madan Lal Jain — 6/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 04th April 2026.
Civil Regular Appeal - CIVIL REG. APPEAL
CNR: RJBD010001622018
Filing Number
40/2018
Filing Date
22-Jan-2018
Registration No
6/2018
Registration Date
22-Jan-2018
Court
DJ ADJ Bundi HQ
Judge
3-ADJ I
Decision Date
04-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing
Last updated 07-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Badam Bai
Adv. Surendra Kr. Naraniwal
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sawita Bai Advocate - Madan Lal Jain
-
2.Dinesh
Adv. Madan Lal Jain
-
3.BUDDI PRKAS
Adv. Madan Lal Jain
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
04-Apr-2026
JudgementView PDF
Case Summary: Badam Bai v. Sawita Bai & Others (Civil Appeal 06/2018) Court Decision The appellate court dismissed the appellant's (Badam Bai's) appeal and upheld the lower court's decree dated 22.12.2017, which rejected her suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions against the respondents. The court found that the appellant failed to establish exclusive ownership or possession of the disputed property (two rooms and a passageway in Bundi) necessary to claim injunctive relief. The respondents' possession of the property, traced back through the appellant's deceased father-in-law (Bhairudatt) over 60 years, was deemed lawful and undisputed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-Apr-2026
Restored
ADJ I
-
04-Apr-2026
Disposed
ADJ I
-
02-Apr-2026
Orders
ADJ I
-
01-Apr-2026
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
30-Mar-2026
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
17-Mar-2026
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
13-Mar-2026
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
12-Mar-2026
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
06-Mar-2026
Final arguments
ADJ I
- 17-Feb-2026
-
17-Feb-2026
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
08-Dec-2025
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
04-Oct-2025
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
19-Aug-2025
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
24-Jul-2025
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
15-May-2025
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
18-Mar-2025
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
28-Jan-2025
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
28-Nov-2024
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
10-Oct-2024
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
31-Aug-2024
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
09-Jul-2024
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
07-May-2024
Final arguments
-
18-Apr-2024
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
01-Apr-2024
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
14-Mar-2024
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
26-Feb-2024
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
22-Feb-2024
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
25-Jan-2024
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
18-Nov-2023
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
10-Oct-2023
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
25-Aug-2023
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
25-May-2023
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
27-Mar-2023
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
16-Jan-2023
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
29-Oct-2022
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
13-Sep-2022
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
14-Jul-2022
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
24-Mar-2022
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
12-Jan-2022
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
20-Nov-2021
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
23-Sep-2021
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
07-Jul-2021
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
06-Jul-2021
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
26-Feb-2021
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
21-Jul-2020
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
21-Apr-2020
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
04-Nov-2019
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
02-Apr-2019
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
01-Feb-2019
Final arguments
ADJ I
-
10-Dec-2018
Final arguments
District Judge
-
22-May-2018
Final arguments
District Judge
-
20-Mar-2018
Final arguments
District Judge
-
01-Feb-2018
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Jan-2018
Case filed
Registration No. 6/2018
Case Summary: Badam Bai v. Sawita Bai & Others (Civil Appeal 06/2018) Court Decision The appellate court dismissed the appellant's (Badam Bai's) appeal and upheld the lower court's decree dated 22.12.2017, which rejected her suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions against the respondents. The court found that the appellant failed to establish exclusive ownership or possession of the disputed property (two rooms and a passageway in Bundi) necessary to claim injunctive relief. The respondents' possession of the property, traced back through the appellant's deceased father-in-law (Bhairudatt) over 60 years, was deemed lawful and undisputed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts