RAJ KUMAR THROUGH HIS LRS vs BAL KISHAN THROUGH HIS LRS AND ORS. — RSA/1567/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 100. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010540962023

Filing Number

RSA/21673/2023

Filing Date

25-Apr-2023

Registration No

RSA/1567/2023

Registration Date

19-May-2023

Judge

Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Coram

Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 100

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJ KUMAR THROUGH HIS LRS

    Adv. RANJIT SAINI

  2. 2.SUBHASH

  3. 3.BADAN SINGH ALIAS LILU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BAL KISHAN THROUGH HIS LRS AND ORS.

  2. 2.RAJ KALI

  3. 3.MUKESH

  4. 4.SURENDER

  5. 5.KUSUM

  6. 6.RACHNA

  7. 7.VIRENDER KUMAR

  8. 8.RAJ KUMAR

  9. 9.KRISHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Nidhi GuptaView PDF

    Case Summary: RSA 1567/2023 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the second appeal filed by Raj Kumar and others challenging the District Courts' dismissal of their declaration suit. The plaintiffs claimed Defendant No.1 (Bal Kishan) had no ownership rights over the disputed land and that his subsequent sale to Defendant No.2 was invalid. The court held that when Defendant No.1 purchased 4K-13M of land from the plaintiffs in 2004, he became a co-sharer in the entire joint property under settled law, entitling him to legally sell his share to Defendant No.2. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Apr-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/1567/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RSA 1567/2023 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the second appeal filed by Raj Kumar and others challenging the District Courts' dismissal of their declaration suit. The plaintiffs claimed Defendant No.1 (Bal Kishan) had no ownership rights over the disputed land and that his subsequent sale to Defendant No.2 was invalid. The court held that when Defendant No.1 purchased 4K-13M of land from the plaintiffs in 2004, he became a co-sharer in the entire joint property under settled law, entitling him to legally sell his share to Defendant No.2. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case