Munni devi vs Jagnnath Advocate - sareef khan — 1198/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Partition. Disposed: Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing on 23rd March 2026.
REG. CIVIL SUIT
CNR: RJDH010005752014
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
4332/2015
Filing Date
23-05-2014
Registration No
1198/2015
Registration Date
28-04-2014
Court
DJ ADJ Dholpur District HQ
Judge
1-District Judge
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Munni devi
Adv. mukesh kamthan
Respondent(s)
Jagnnath Advocate - sareef khan
Sahab singh
bhoori
Triveni
Vishan devi
Chameli
Pratighya
Nathiya
PNB Basai nawab
tehsildar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge
Disposed
Final arguments
Defendant Evidence
Defendant Evidence
Defendant Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 09-03-2026 | Defendant Evidence | |
| 24-02-2026 | Defendant Evidence | |
| 16-02-2026 | Defendant Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The District Judge of Dholpur, Rajasthan, partially granted the plaintiff Muni Devi's suit for partition of agricultural and residential property. The court decreed that the disputed property, inherited from the common ancestor Thola, should be divided among the parties in equal 1/4 shares, with the plaintiff authorized to partition the agricultural land (Schedule B) but rejecting her claim for residential property (Schedule A). The court found the civil court had jurisdiction despite it being agricultural land, as there was no dispute regarding tenancy rights, and imposed a permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's rightful share. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary: The District Judge of Dholpur, Rajasthan, partially granted the plaintiff Muni Devi's suit for partition of agricultural and residential property. The court decreed that the disputed property, inherited from the common ancestor Thola, should be divided among the parties in equal 1/4 shares, with the plaintiff authorized to partition the agricultural land (Schedule B) but rejecting her claim for residential property (Schedule A). The court found the civil court had jurisdiction despite it being agricultural land, as there was no dispute regarding tenancy rights, and imposed a permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's rightful share. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts