Ramgopal vs Vimal — 2/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O 7 R 1. Disposed: Contested--Suit Dismissed, Counter Claim Decreed on 06th April 2026.
Civil Suit
CNR: RJBD150000032024
Filing Number
3/2024
Filing Date
01-02-2024
Registration No
2/2024
Registration Date
01-02-2024
Court
CJ JD Indergarh Taluka
Judge
1-JM
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Suit Dismissed, Counter Claim Decreed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramgopal
Adv. Bal Kishan Raika
Geeta Bai
Mahendra
Manisha
Respondent(s)
Vimal
Mayuri
Sub Registrar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JM
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 24-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 24-02-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
CASE SUMMARY: 2/2024 Court Decision (06.04.2026): The Civil Judge dismissed the petitioners' (Ramgopal, Geeta Bai, and Mahendra) suit seeking a permanent injunction against respondents (Vimal, Mayuri, and Sub-Registrar) regarding disputed property ownership. The court ruled that respondent Vimal is the registered owner of the disputed plot (No. 33), having acquired it through a registered sale deed dated 02.09.2011 and subsequently executed a gift deed in the petitioners' favor on 14.12.2012—making the gift deed void as Vimal lacked authority to execute it after the earlier transfer. The petitioners failed to prove their ownership and were directed to vacate the property within two months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY: 2/2024 Court Decision (06.04.2026): The Civil Judge dismissed the petitioners' (Ramgopal, Geeta Bai, and Mahendra) suit seeking a permanent injunction against respondents (Vimal, Mayuri, and Sub-Registrar) regarding disputed property ownership. The court ruled that respondent Vimal is the registered owner of the disputed plot (No. 33), having acquired it through a registered sale deed dated 02.09.2011 and subsequently executed a gift deed in the petitioners' favor on 14.12.2012—making the gift deed void as Vimal lacked authority to execute it after the earlier transfer. The petitioners failed to prove their ownership and were directed to vacate the property within two months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts