Jawahar Lal (Dead) Through Arjun Singh vs Indra Kunvar(Dead) Through Poolchandra Advocate - Amit Kumar Mishra — 13/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 23rd March 2026.
Regular Civil Appeal
CNR: UPCH010011382024
Filing Number
40/2024
Filing Date
18-Apr-2024
Registration No
13/2024
Registration Date
18-Apr-2024
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
23-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 06-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Jawahar Lal (Dead) Through Arjun Singh
Adv. Brij Bhushan Singh
-
2.Ram Mohan Singh
Adv. Brij Bhushan Singh
-
3.Shyamlal
Adv. Brij Bhushan Singh
-
4.Samaylal
Adv. Brij Bhushan Singh
Respondent(s)
-
1.Indra Kunvar(Dead) Through Poolchandra Advocate - Amit Kumar Mishra
-
2.Babbu Alias Ramesh Singh
Adv. Amit Kumar Mishra
-
3.Indresh Singh
Adv. Amit Kumar Mishra
-
4.Shivrani(dead)
-
5.Kudhiya Bewa
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Mar-2026
JudgmentView PDF
The District Judge of Chitrakoot dismissed the appellants' challenge to a 1969 sale deed of ancestral land, holding that while the sale deed was technically voidable under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956) due to lack of court permission, the suit was time-barred as it was filed 41 years after execution instead of within 3 years of attaining majority. The court confirmed the lower court's judgment, finding that the appellants failed to prove fraud or lack of consideration, and that multiple opportunities for argument were provided before judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Mar-2026
Disposed
District and Sessions Judge
-
20-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
19-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
06-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
07-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
16-Jan-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
15-Dec-2025
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
24-Nov-2025
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
30-Oct-2025
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
09-Oct-2025
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II
-
24-Sep-2025
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II
-
09-Sep-2025
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II
-
22-Aug-2025
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II
-
13-Aug-2025
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II
-
05-Aug-2025
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II
-
29-Jul-2025
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II
-
22-Jul-2025
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II
-
15-Jul-2025
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II
-
08-Jul-2025
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II
-
05-Jul-2025
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II
-
01-Jul-2025
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge - II
-
15-May-2025
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
25-Apr-2025
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
09-Apr-2025
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
18-Mar-2025
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
20-Feb-2025
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
29-Jan-2025
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
01-Jan-2025
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
07-Dec-2024
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
21-Nov-2024
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
25-Oct-2024
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
10-Oct-2024
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
21-Sep-2024
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
05-Sep-2024
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
17-Aug-2024
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
30-Jul-2024
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
08-Jul-2024
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
15-May-2024
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
18-Apr-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Apr-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 13/2024
The District Judge of Chitrakoot dismissed the appellants' challenge to a 1969 sale deed of ancestral land, holding that while the sale deed was technically voidable under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956) due to lack of court permission, the suit was time-barred as it was filed 41 years after execution instead of within 3 years of attaining majority. The court confirmed the lower court's judgment, finding that the appellants failed to prove fraud or lack of consideration, and that multiple opportunities for argument were provided before judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts