Kishor Ramkrushna Wankhade vs Shri Rayalbuva Sansthan, thr its Trustsy, Ramdas Omkarrao Mehare Advocate - Wankhade R.S — 2/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 09th March 2026.
R.C.A. - Civil Appeal
CNR: MHAK050000122023
Filing Number
6/2023
Filing Date
09-01-2023
Registration No
2/2023
Registration Date
09-01-2023
Court
District and Session Court , Akot
Judge
1-District Judge-1 A.S.J. Akot
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kishor Ramkrushna Wankhade
Adv. Walsinge Sandip Vitthalrao
Respondent(s)
Shri Rayalbuva Sansthan, thr its Trustsy, Ramdas Omkarrao Mehare Advocate - Wankhade R.S
Sau. Shila Bhimrao Kukade
Sau. Rajani Balkrushna Ghate
Sau. Seema Dattu Kale
Nilesh Ashok Wankhade
Sachin Ashok Wankhade
Tai Ashok Wankhade
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge-1 A.S.J. Akot
Disposed
Hearing
Steps
Steps
Steps
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 13-01-2026 | Steps |
| 09-01-2026 | Steps |
| 11-11-2025 | Steps |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District Judge, Akot dismissed the appellant's appeal challenging an execution court order rejecting his objection to an eviction decree. The court found that the appellant failed to establish an independent right to the disputed property through adverse possession, as he could not prove continuous, open, peaceful, and hostile possession since 2002—he had left the property after receiving a pre-suit notice and only returned in January 2002, lacking the required hostile animus and documentary evidence of adverse possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The District Judge, Akot dismissed the appellant's appeal challenging an execution court order rejecting his objection to an eviction decree. The court found that the appellant failed to establish an independent right to the disputed property through adverse possession, as he could not prove continuous, open, peaceful, and hostile possession since 2002—he had left the property after receiving a pre-suit notice and only returned in January 2002, lacking the required hostile animus and documentary evidence of adverse possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts