Shyamal Paul vs Smti. Arati Paul and ors — RSA/5/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 100. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: TRHC010004462026

Filing Number

RSA/313/2026

Filing Date

16-Mar-2026

Registration No

RSA/5/2026

Registration Date

23-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Bench Type

Single Bench

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 03-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 100

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shyamal Paul

    Adv. Mr PRADIP CHAKRABORTY,Ms DEBADRITA DEB,Ms DEBADRITA DEB, ,Ms SUKRITI DEBNATH,Ms DEBADRITA DEB

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Smti. Arati Paul and ors

  2. 2.Sri Subhash Chandra Paul,

  3. 3.Sri Anup Kr. Paul,

  4. 4.Sri Ajay Kumar Paul,

  5. 5.Sri Arun Kumar Paul,

  6. 6.Sri Barun Kumar Paul,

  7. 7.Smti Sima Paul,

  8. 8.Smti Jharna Paul,

  9. 9.Sri Prasenjit Paul

  10. 10.Smti Priyanka Paul

  11. 11.Smti Rita Paul

  12. 12.Smti Soma Paul

  13. 13.Smti Asmita Paul

  14. 14.Sri Haradhan Paul

  15. 15.Smti Maya Kundu

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief JusticeView PDF

    The High Court of Tripura dismissed the appellant's Second Appeal seeking perpetual injunction, upholding the concurrent findings of both the Trial Court and lower Appellate Court. The courts found that the family settlement dated 10.01.1997 relied upon by the appellant was not related to the scheduled property in dispute, and the appellant failed to prove possession over the property at the time of filing the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/5/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Tripura dismissed the appellant's Second Appeal seeking perpetual injunction, upholding the concurrent findings of both the Trial Court and lower Appellate Court. The courts found that the family settlement dated 10.01.1997 relied upon by the appellant was not related to the scheduled property in dispute, and the appellant failed to prove possession over the property at the time of filing the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case