Dharmesh Kumar vs Shyauraj Singh alias Shivraj Singh — 53/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DECIDED on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

Regular Civil Appeal

CNR: UPET010067992025

Filing Number

512/2025

Filing Date

15-Oct-2025

Registration No

53/2025

Registration Date

16-Oct-2025

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District And Sessions Judge

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DECIDED

Last updated 16-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Dharmesh Kumar

    Adv. Ravindra Sahai

  2. 2.Arunesh kumar alias Pappu

  3. 3.Indresh kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shyauraj Singh alias Shivraj Singh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    COURT DECISION SUMMARY The District Judge of Eta reversed the lower court's dismissal of plaintiffs' suit, holding that co-heirs (Dharmesh Kumar and others) possess 1/4 share each in the disputed agricultural land (Khasra 48). The court ruled that since the property remains legally undivided despite a family partition, the defendant cannot construct or encroach upon the southern portion without legal partition from the Revenue Court, and plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction protecting their rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District And Sessions Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    District And Sessions Judge

  5. 04-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District And Sessions Judge

  6. 05-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    District And Sessions Judge

  7. 24-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    District And Sessions Judge

  8. 09-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    District And Sessions Judge

  9. 19-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 15-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 53/2025

casestatus.in Summary

COURT DECISION SUMMARY The District Judge of Eta reversed the lower court's dismissal of plaintiffs' suit, holding that co-heirs (Dharmesh Kumar and others) possess 1/4 share each in the disputed agricultural land (Khasra 48). The court ruled that since the property remains legally undivided despite a family partition, the defendant cannot construct or encroach upon the southern portion without legal partition from the Revenue Court, and plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction protecting their rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case