CHANDRAWATI vs MANOHARI DIED THROUIGH CHIRONJA Advocate - MOHANLAL SHARMA — 51/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O39. Disposed: Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

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

CNR: RJBH070007602023

Filing Number

345/2023

Filing Date

22-Aug-2023

Registration No

51/2023

Registration Date

22-Aug-2023

Court

ADJ Bayana Taluka

Judge

2-ADJ II

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O39

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHANDRAWATI

    Adv. SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MANOHARI DIED THROUIGH CHIRONJA Advocate - MOHANLAL SHARMA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Additional District Court (No. 2) in Bayana, Bharatpur, granted an interim injunction petition filed by Chandravati and others against Manohari and other defendants. The court found that Chandravati's claim to be the heir of deceased Budh (son of Mali), entitled to 1/6 share in the disputed agricultural and residential property in village Srinagar, was established based on documentary evidence including land records, death certificates, and police records. The court restrained the defendants from transferring, selling, or interfering with the disputed property and directed both parties to maintain the status quo of the land records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ II

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

    ADJ II

  5. 18-Feb-2026

    Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

    ADJ II

  6. 06-Feb-2026

    Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

    ADJ II

  7. 21-Jan-2026

    Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

    ADJ II

  8. 08-Jan-2026

    Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

    ADJ II

  9. 02-Dec-2025

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    ADJ II

  10. 24-Nov-2025

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    ADJ II

  11. 06-Oct-2025

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    ADJ II

  12. 11-Sep-2025

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    ADJ II

  13. 24-Jul-2025

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    ADJ II

  14. 19-May-2025

    Reply of Application/ Steps by parties

    ADJ II

  15. 07-Apr-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    ADJ II

  16. 19-Feb-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    ADJ II

  17. 13-Jan-2025

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    ADJ II

  18. 21-Nov-2024

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    ADJ II

  19. 09-Oct-2024

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    ADJ II

  20. 21-Aug-2024

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    ADJ II

  21. 08-Jul-2024

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    ADJ II

  22. 12-Apr-2024

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    ADJ II

  23. 21-Feb-2024

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    ADJ II

  24. 09-Jan-2024

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    ADJ II

  25. 23-Nov-2023

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    ADJ II

  26. 19-Oct-2023

    Awaiting Services of notices/ summons

    ADJ II

  27. 21-Sep-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 22-Aug-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 51/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Additional District Court (No. 2) in Bayana, Bharatpur, granted an interim injunction petition filed by Chandravati and others against Manohari and other defendants. The court found that Chandravati's claim to be the heir of deceased Budh (son of Mali), entitled to 1/6 share in the disputed agricultural and residential property in village Srinagar, was established based on documentary evidence including land records, death certificates, and police records. The court restrained the defendants from transferring, selling, or interfering with the disputed property and directed both parties to maintain the status quo of the land records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case