Preetpal vs Satish kumar etc Advocate - SHAILENDRA KAMRA — 273/2014
Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 24th April 2026.
Co - Civil Suit
CNR: RJSG090002192011
Filing Number
821/2014
Filing Date
19-10-2011
Registration No
273/2014
Registration Date
19-10-2011
Court
ADJ ANOOPGARH TALUKA
Judge
1-ADJ
Decision Date
24th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing
Petitioner(s)
Preetpal
Adv. INDRAJ KASWAN
Respondent(s)
Satish kumar etc Advocate - SHAILENDRA KAMRA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADJ
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-04-2026 | Final arguments |
| 24-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 27-02-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 273/2014: Preetpal v. Satish Kumar - Summary Decision (24.04.2026): The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit and rejected the defendant's counter-claim, finding the sale agreement (Ikrar Nama) dated 12.04.1989 void ab initio as violating the Rajasthan Colonisation Rules, 1972. Key Reasoning: The disputed agricultural land was allotted to defendant's father under "ghair-khatedari" (non-occupancy) tenure, which prohibited any sale or transfer for 20 years. The plaintiff's father attempted to purchase the land before khatedari rights had accrued—making the sale agreement legally invalid. Since the agreement was void, the plaintiff has no enforceable rights to the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 273/2014: Preetpal v. Satish Kumar - Summary Decision (24.04.2026): The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit and rejected the defendant's counter-claim, finding the sale agreement (Ikrar Nama) dated 12.04.1989 void ab initio as violating the Rajasthan Colonisation Rules, 1972. Key Reasoning: The disputed agricultural land was allotted to defendant's father under "ghair-khatedari" (non-occupancy) tenure, which prohibited any sale or transfer for 20 years. The plaintiff's father attempted to purchase the land before khatedari rights had accrued—making the sale agreement legally invalid. Since the agreement was void, the plaintiff has no enforceable rights to the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts