SMT. ASHA DEVI AND OTH. vs NARENDRA KUMAR AND OTH. Advocate - YOGESH JAKHAR, ARPAN NAGAR — 3/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7. Disposed: Contested--Decreed after Full Trial on 07th March 2026.
Civil Suit
CNR: RJDS010003432023
Filing Number
163/2023
Filing Date
29-Mar-2023
Registration No
3/2023
Registration Date
29-Mar-2023
Court
DJ ADJ Dausa District HQ
Judge
3-ADJ
Decision Date
07-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed after Full Trial
Last updated 12-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SMT. ASHA DEVI AND OTH.
Adv. BRAJMOHAN GOUR
Respondent(s)
-
1.NARENDRA KUMAR AND OTH. Advocate - YOGESH JAKHAR, ARPAN NAGAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Mar-2026
Disposed
ADJ
-
06-Mar-2026
Judgement
-
06-Mar-2026
Final arguments
ADJ
-
24-Feb-2026
Final arguments
ADJ
-
09-Feb-2026
Final arguments
ADJ
-
29-Jan-2026
Final arguments
ADJ
-
08-Jan-2026
Defendant Evidence
ADJ
-
19-Dec-2025
Defendant Evidence
ADJ
-
08-Dec-2025
Defendant Evidence
ADJ
-
20-Nov-2025
Defendant Evidence
ADJ
-
31-Oct-2025
Defendant Evidence
ADJ
-
03-Oct-2025
Defendant Evidence
ADJ
-
12-Sep-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
ADJ
-
06-Sep-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
ADJ
-
04-Aug-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
ADJ
-
18-Jul-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
ADJ
-
16-May-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
ADJ
-
05-May-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
ADJ
-
02-May-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
ADJ
-
28-Mar-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
ADJ
-
10-Mar-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
ADJ
-
14-Feb-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
ADJ
-
23-Jan-2025
Written Statement
ADJ
-
09-Jan-2025
Written Statement
ADJ
-
16-Dec-2024
Written Statement
ADJ
-
28-Nov-2024
Written Statement
ADJ
-
18-Oct-2024
Written Statement
ADJ
-
26-Sep-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
ADJ
-
06-Sep-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
ADJ
-
30-Aug-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
ADJ
-
02-Aug-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
ADJ
-
18-Jul-2024
Orders
ADJ
-
11-Jul-2024
Orders
ADJ
-
01-Jul-2024
Orders
ADJ
-
30-May-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
ADJ
-
20-Apr-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
ADJ
-
06-Apr-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
ADJ
-
29-Feb-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
ADJ
-
19-Feb-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
ADJ
-
29-Jan-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
ADJ
-
25-Jan-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District Judge
-
08-Jan-2024
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District Judge
-
16-Dec-2023
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District Judge
-
16-Nov-2023
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District Judge
-
27-Oct-2023
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District Judge
-
29-Sep-2023
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District Judge
-
16-Sep-2023
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District Judge
-
24-Aug-2023
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
District Judge
-
04-Aug-2023
Written Statement
District Judge
-
13-Jul-2023
Written Statement
District Judge
-
01-Jun-2023
Written Statement
District Judge
-
29-May-2023
Written Statement
District Judge
-
06-May-2023
Written Statement
District Judge
-
01-May-2023
Written Statement
District Judge
-
28-Apr-2023
Written Statement
District Judge
-
21-Apr-2023
Written Statement
District Judge
-
12-Apr-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
29-Mar-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 3/2023
SUMMARY: The Rajasthan court ruled that the plaintiff (Asha Devi) has a legal claim to a one-fourth share of the disputed residential property ("Lilita Bhawan") at Dausra as a legal heir following her mother's (Lilita Devi's) death, and that this property must be partitioned equally among the plaintiff and defendants (the mother's children). However, regarding the agricultural land relinquishment deed (dated 07.04.2022), the court held that disputes over agricultural land tenancy rights, succession, and partition must be resolved by the Revenue Court rather than civil court, and deferred the final determination of those issues to the appropriate revenue jurisdiction. The court prohibited defendants from transferring or alienating the plaintiff's rights in the residential property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts