• Home
  • About
  • Our Aim
  • Team
  • Photos
  • We Contribute
  • Online Appointment
  • Donate Us
  • FAQs
  • Contact
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Our Aim
  • Team
  • Photos
  • We Contribute
  • Online Appointment
  • Donate Us
  • FAQs
  • Contact
Search
Close
Home Resolve by DE

Full-Stop No. 02/2025 (Property – Dispute)

Adv. Dilip Kumar by Adv. Dilip Kumar
March 31, 2025
in Resolve by DE
0
Full-Stop No. 02/2025  (Property – Dispute)
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • WhatsApp

Dispute-Eater
Run & managed by
Ram Yatan Sharma Memorial Trust
Muzaffarpur
Full-Stop No. 02/2025
(Property – Dispute)

 

Date of Compromise: – 26.02.2025
Name of the Court:- Mr. Raju Kumar Executive Magistrate East Muzaffarpur
Case No.- Proceeding U/S 147 Cr.P.C
Name of the 01st Party:- Mr. Bharat Thakur S/o Late Ragho Thakur, a Resident at village- Budhnagara, Ps- Mushahari, Sub-Division East Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur, Mob:- 9931274483

Name of the 02nd Party:- Mr. Ram Shobhit Thakur S/o Late Narayan Thakur, a Resident at village- Budhnagara, Ps- Mushahari, Sub-Division East Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur, Mob:- 9934008597

Both parties to the proceeding are residents of the same village. The dispute arose over the land situated in the village of Budhnagara, Police Station Mushahari, Sub-Division East Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur. The land in question pertains to the Revisional Survey Khata Nos. 392, 322, and 393, with RSP Nos. 723, 724, and 729. The total area in dispute measures approximately 750 square feet, equivalent to 11.25 dismals (with dimensions of 03 feet wide and 250 feet long).

According to the first party, the land in dispute serves as a common passage, which they have been using for over 50 years. The first party claims that this passage is the only way to access the main road from their house. The second party has polluted the passage by discharging dirty water onto it. In addition, the second party is said to have encroached on the remaining portion of the land by erecting bamboo structures and a hut, thereby obstructing the use of the land as a common passage.

In response to these allegations, the second party filed a reply before the court of competent jurisdiction, seeking redress for the grievances. The second party appeared in court and vehemently denied the first party’s allegations. They contend that the land in question is their private property, which was allotted to them through a partition, and that they have every right to obstruct its use. The second party has therefore requested the court to dismiss the proceedings.

With the concerted efforts of the “Dispute-Eater,” the ongoing dispute between the parties has been successfully resolved. A formal compromise agreement has been prepared, which will be submitted to the court for approval. This agreement aims to permanently settle the dispute between the parties, ensuring that both sides are in agreement and all issues are conclusively addressed. As a result of this resolution, the conflict between the parties has now come to a Full-Stop.

For Dispute-Eater
26.02.2025

Adv. Dilip Kumar

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • WhatsApp
Previous Post

“डिस्प्यूट-ईटर: पारिवारिक विवादों में निःशुल्क सहायता की एक नई उम्मीद”

Next Post

Full-Stop No. 03/2025 (Family – Dispute)

Adv. Dilip Kumar

Adv. Dilip Kumar

Next Post
Full-Stop No. 03/2025 (Family – Dispute)

Full-Stop No. 03/2025 (Family – Dispute)

Discussion about this post

Cases Resolved by the DE

Full Stop No. 29/2025 (Family – Dispute)

Full Stop No. 29/2025 (Family – Dispute)

by Adv. Dilip Kumar
September 17, 2025
0

Dispute-Eater Run & Managed by Ram Yatan Sharma Memorial Trust...

Full-Stop No. 28/2025 (Criminal Dispute)

Full-Stop No. 28/2025 (Criminal Dispute)

by Adv. Dilip Kumar
September 10, 2025
0

Dispute-Eater Run & Managed by Ram Yatan Sharma Memorial Trust,...

Full-Stop No. 27/2025 (Family Dispute)

Full-Stop No. 27/2025 (Family Dispute)

by Adv. Dilip Kumar
August 13, 2025
0

Dispute-Eater Run & Managed by Ram Yatan Sharma Memorial Trust,...

Load More

Latest Articles on DE

Dispute Eater Theory of Judicial Reform Part-01

Dispute Eater Theory of Judicial Reform Part-01

by Adv. Dilip Kumar
September 24, 2025
0

  व्यवहार प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1908 में आवश्यक संशोधनों द्वारा सिविल...

Dispute Eater Theory of Bail.

Dispute Eater Theory of Bail.

by Adv. Dilip Kumar
September 23, 2025
0

सर्वोच्च न्यायालय और उच्च न्यायालय का समय किस काम के...

महिला अधिकार : असली पीड़ित बनाम नकली पीड़ित।

महिला अधिकार : असली पीड़ित बनाम नकली पीड़ित।

by Adv. Dilip Kumar
September 3, 2025
0

महिला अधिकार : असली पीड़ित बनाम नकली पीड़ित भारतीय समाज...

Judgement from the Court

संयुक्त वसीयत की स्थिति में वसीयत का प्रावधान केवल मृतक वसीयतकर्ता की संपत्ति तक ही सीमित होगा जीवित वसीयतकर्ता की संपत्ति पर प्रभावी नहीं होगा-  केरल उच्च न्यायालय।

संयुक्त वसीयत की स्थिति में वसीयत का प्रावधान केवल मृतक वसीयतकर्ता की संपत्ति तक ही सीमित होगा जीवित वसीयतकर्ता की संपत्ति पर प्रभावी नहीं होगा-  केरल उच्च न्यायालय।

January 7, 2023
बहू को है सास-ससुर के घर में रहने का अधिकार – सुप्रीम कोर्ट का ऐतिहासिक फैसला,  

बहू को है सास-ससुर के घर में रहने का अधिकार – सुप्रीम कोर्ट का ऐतिहासिक फैसला,  

September 19, 2022
नोटरी विवाह/तलाक दस्तावेजों को निष्पादित करने के लिए अधिकृत नहीं हैं: – MP HC

नोटरी विवाह/तलाक दस्तावेजों को निष्पादित करने के लिए अधिकृत नहीं हैं: – MP HC

November 24, 2021
Load More
  • Home
  • About
  • Our Aim
  • Team
  • Photos
  • We Contribute
  • Online Appointment
  • Donate Us
  • FAQs
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About
  • Our Aim
  • Team
  • Photos
  • We Contribute
  • Online Appointment
  • Donate Us
  • FAQs
  • Contact
Facebook Twitter Youtube Linkedin
© 2019-2022 – Dispute Eater

Run & Managed by – RAM YATAN SHARMA MEMORIAL TRUST®

made with love at Ambit Solutions (7488039982)
WhatsApp chat