Harun Dagadu Shaikh vs Kayyum Jafar Shaikh — 332/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 12,34,37. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 09th July 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHAU070027032025
Next Hearing
09th July 2026
Filing Number
2093/2025
Filing Date
21-10-2024
Registration No
332/2025
Registration Date
22-10-2024
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Gangapur
Judge
6-JT. CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION GANGAPUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Harun Dagadu Shaikh
Adv. Ambekar S.K.
Respondent(s)
Kayyum Jafar Shaikh
Mangalbai Raghunath Lembhe
Adv. Pankade D.E.
Sub Ragistrar
Tahasildar
Talathi
Circle Officer
Hearing History
Judge: 6-JT. CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION GANGAPUR
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Issues |
| 12-03-2026 | Issues |
| 26-02-2026 | Issues |
| 18-02-2026 | Issues |
| 10-02-2026 | Issues |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 332/2025 Petition Dismissed Petitioner Harun Dagadu Shaikh sought temporary injunction against Respondents Kayyum Jafar Shaikh and Mangalbai Raghunath Lembhe regarding agricultural land in Aurangabad. The Court found that while an unregistered memorandum of understanding (dated 05.06.2024) existed between petitioner and Respondent 1, Respondent 2 subsequently obtained a registered sale deed (dated 03.07.2024) after paying the full consideration of ₹5,95,000. The Court held that Respondent 2 is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, and the registered deed creates superior legal title compared to the unregistered agreement. The petition was dismissed as petitioner failed to establish sufficient grounds for interim relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 332/2025 Petition Dismissed Petitioner Harun Dagadu Shaikh sought temporary injunction against Respondents Kayyum Jafar Shaikh and Mangalbai Raghunath Lembhe regarding agricultural land in Aurangabad. The Court found that while an unregistered memorandum of understanding (dated 05.06.2024) existed between petitioner and Respondent 1, Respondent 2 subsequently obtained a registered sale deed (dated 03.07.2024) after paying the full consideration of ₹5,95,000. The Court held that Respondent 2 is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, and the registered deed creates superior legal title compared to the unregistered agreement. The petition was dismissed as petitioner failed to establish sufficient grounds for interim relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts