Ramesh vs Tara Bai — 6/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96,. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 23rd March 2026.
Civil Regular Appeal - CIVIL REG. APPEAL
CNR: RJPG010004702023
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
64/2023
Filing Date
25-04-2023
Registration No
6/2023
Registration Date
12-05-2023
Court
DJ ADJ COURT PRATAPGARH DISTRICT HQ
Judge
1-District Judge
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramesh
Adv. Sh. Dharmachand Nagori
Badrilal
Vidhya Sagar
Respondent(s)
Tara Bai
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge
Disposed
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 19-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings | |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings | |
| 06-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The District Court of Pratapgarh, Rajasthan dismissed the appellant's appeal on 23.03.2026 regarding ownership and possession of a disputed well (naal) adjacent to his property. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the well belonged to him, as his ancestral will and property documents did not mention the well's ownership, and evidence showed the well was constructed on the defendant's authorized land. The court upheld the lower court's decision that the well belongs to the defendant/respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The District Court of Pratapgarh, Rajasthan dismissed the appellant's appeal on 23.03.2026 regarding ownership and possession of a disputed well (naal) adjacent to his property. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the well belonged to him, as his ancestral will and property documents did not mention the well's ownership, and evidence showed the well was constructed on the defendant's authorized land. The court upheld the lower court's decision that the well belongs to the defendant/respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts