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-Feb-2024
Registration No
2/2024
Registration Date
01-Feb-2024
Court
CJ JD Indergarh Taluka
Judge
1-Jm
Decision Date
06-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Suit Dismissed, Counter Claim Decreed
Last updated 07-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Ramgopal
Adv. Bal Kishan Raika
-
2.Geeta Bai
-
3.Mahendra
-
4.Manisha
Respondent(s)
-
1.Vimal
-
2.Mayuri
-
3.Sub Registrar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-Apr-2026
JudgementView PDF
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.
-
06-Apr-2026
Disposed
Jm
-
28-Mar-2026
Final arguments
Jm
-
24-Mar-2026
Final arguments
Jm
-
13-Mar-2026
Final arguments
Jm
-
24-Feb-2026
Final arguments
Jm
-
13-Feb-2026
Rebuttal Evidence
Jm
-
03-Feb-2026
Rebuttal Evidence
Jm
-
23-Jan-2026
Defendant Evidence
Jm
-
13-Jan-2026
Defendant Evidence
Jm
-
09-Dec-2025
Defendant Evidence
Jm
-
02-Dec-2025
Defendant Evidence
Jm
-
18-Nov-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Jm
-
04-Nov-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Jm
-
24-Oct-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Jm
-
14-Oct-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Jm
-
20-Sep-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Jm
-
19-Sep-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Jm
-
09-Sep-2025
Defendant Evidence
Jm
-
05-Aug-2025
Defendant Evidence
Jm
-
15-Jul-2025
Compliance
Jm
-
01-Jul-2025
Compliance
Jm
-
31-May-2025
Compliance
Jm
-
23-May-2025
Compliance
Jm
-
22-Apr-2025
Compliance
Jm
-
15-Apr-2025
Compliance
Jm
-
12-Mar-2025
Compliance
Jm
-
28-Feb-2025
Compliance
Jm
-
18-Feb-2025
Compliance
Jm
-
04-Feb-2025
Compliance
Jm
-
04-Jan-2025
Compliance
Jm
-
06-Dec-2024
Compliance
Jm
-
26-Nov-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Jm
-
19-Nov-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Jm
-
18-Oct-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Jm
-
24-Sep-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Jm
-
10-Sep-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Jm
-
30-Aug-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Jm
-
20-Aug-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Jm
-
06-Aug-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Jm
-
09-Jul-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Jm
-
17-May-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Jm
-
16-May-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Jm
-
14-May-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Jm
-
10-May-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Jm
-
30-Apr-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Jm
-
06-Apr-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Acjm
-
15-Mar-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Acjm
-
01-Mar-2024
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Acjm
-
17-Feb-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
01-Feb-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 2/2024
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.
Explore other courts