Shri. Ajit S/o Ram Pokle vs Shri. U.F.M. Sri. Rajadhiraj S/o Brahmesh Wagh — 33/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED/GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

R.A. - Regular Appeals

CNR: KAUK020027952025

Filing Number

29/2025

Filing Date

14-Oct-2025

Registration No

33/2025

Registration Date

14-Oct-2025

Court

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, KARWAR

Judge

520-Prl. Snr. CIVIL Judge And CJM Court, Karwar

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED/GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shri. Ajit S/o Ram Pokle

    Adv. CHARAN DATTA NAIK

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shri. U.F.M. Sri. Rajadhiraj S/o Brahmesh Wagh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: R.A./33/2025 Court: Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court, Karwar, Uttara Kannada Date of Judgment: 16th March 2026 Parties: - Appellant: Sri. Ajit S/o Ram Pokle (Defendant in trial court) - Respondent: Sri. U.F.M. Sri. Rajadhiraj S/o Brahmesh Wagh (Plaintiff in trial court) Decision: The appellate court allowed the defendant's appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish title to the disputed property and that the suit was not properly maintainable without a declaration of title. Key Reasoning: The court found that although the trial court correctly held the 2002 sale deed to be fraudulent and void (executed 18 years after the grandmother's 1984 death), the plaintiff's suit had critical defects. The plaintiff claimed to be the rightful heir but filed only for possession and injunction without seeking a declaration of his title as a legal heir to the property. The court ruled that without first establishing title through proper pleading and proof of his status as successor-in-interest, the suit for mere possession was unmaintainable. Additionally, the court noted inconsistencies in the plaintiff's claims regarding property mutations in revenue records and his actual knowledge of the defendant's occupation since 1991-2002. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Prl. Snr. CIVIL Judge And CJM Court, Karwar

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Prl. Snr. CIVIL Judge And CJM Court, Karwar

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Prl. Snr. CIVIL Judge And CJM Court, Karwar

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Prl. Snr. CIVIL Judge And CJM Court, Karwar

  7. 21-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Prl. Snr. CIVIL Judge And CJM Court, Karwar

  8. 16-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Prl. Snr. CIVIL Judge And CJM Court, Karwar

  9. 07-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Prl. Snr. CIVIL Judge And CJM Court, Karwar

  10. 24-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Prl. Snr. CIVIL Judge And CJM Court, Karwar

  11. 09-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Prl. Snr. CIVIL Judge And CJM Court, Karwar

  12. 16-Dec-2025

    Await Notice

    Prl. Snr. CIVIL Judge And CJM Court, Karwar

  13. 01-Dec-2025

    Await Notice

    Prl. Snr. CIVIL Judge And CJM Court, Karwar

  14. 14-Nov-2025

    Await Notice

    Prl. Snr. CIVIL Judge And CJM Court, Karwar

  15. 17-Oct-2025

    OrdersView PDF

  16. 17-Oct-2025

    OrdersView PDF

  17. 17-Oct-2025

    Notice

    Prl. Snr. CIVIL Judge And CJM Court, Karwar

  18. 16-Oct-2025

    Orders

    Prl. Snr. CIVIL Judge And CJM Court, Karwar

  19. 15-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  20. 14-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 33/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.A./33/2025 Court: Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court, Karwar, Uttara Kannada Date of Judgment: 16th March 2026 Parties: - Appellant: Sri. Ajit S/o Ram Pokle (Defendant in trial court) - Respondent: Sri. U.F.M. Sri. Rajadhiraj S/o Brahmesh Wagh (Plaintiff in trial court) Decision: The appellate court allowed the defendant's appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish title to the disputed property and that the suit was not properly maintainable without a declaration of title. Key Reasoning: The court found that although the trial court correctly held the 2002 sale deed to be fraudulent and void (executed 18 years after the grandmother's 1984 death), the plaintiff's suit had critical defects. The plaintiff claimed to be the rightful heir but filed only for possession and injunction without seeking a declaration of his title as a legal heir to the property. The court ruled that without first establishing title through proper pleading and proof of his status as successor-in-interest, the suit for mere possession was unmaintainable. Additionally, the court noted inconsistencies in the plaintiff's claims regarding property mutations in revenue records and his actual knowledge of the defendant's occupation since 1991-2002. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case