Indrapal vs Munshi Advocate - DINESH SHARMA — 19/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section o39rule1and2. Disposed: Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing on 16th March 2026.
Civil Misc. Connected (41) - CIVIL MISC (C)
CNR: RJSK170000392026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
34/2026
Filing Date
16-02-2026
Registration No
19/2026
Registration Date
25-02-2026
Court
JM FATEHPUR TALUKA HQ
Judge
1-JM
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Indrapal
Adv. MR MUKESH BHATRA
Respondent(s)
Munshi Advocate - DINESH SHARMA
Shabana bano
Adv. DINESH SHARMA
Jubeda bano
Adv. DINESH SHARMA
moh. samir
Adv. DINESH SHARMA
tehsildar
sub registar
Patawari
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JM
Disposed
Reply of Application/ Steps by parties
Reply of Application/ Steps by parties
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Reply of Application/ Steps by parties | |
| 07-03-2026 | Reply of Application/ Steps by parties |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Civil Judge of Fatehpur granted an interim injunction (Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC) in favor of the plaintiff Indrapal against the defendants. The court found a prima facie case favoring the plaintiff, holding that the disputed gift deeds dated 06.08.2025 were potentially invalid since the land originally belonged to the plaintiff, who allegedly never sold it to defendants 1 and 3, and that property transfers exceeding Rs. 100 require registered documents. The defendants were restrained from selling, transferring, or constructing on the disputed property pending the main suit's decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Civil Judge of Fatehpur granted an interim injunction (Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC) in favor of the plaintiff Indrapal against the defendants. The court found a prima facie case favoring the plaintiff, holding that the disputed gift deeds dated 06.08.2025 were potentially invalid since the land originally belonged to the plaintiff, who allegedly never sold it to defendants 1 and 3, and that property transfers exceeding Rs. 100 require registered documents. The defendants were restrained from selling, transferring, or constructing on the disputed property pending the main suit's decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts