Ranjana Prakash Jadhao vs Kaushalyabai Tukaram Thombre Advocate - Badge RW — 61/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 41(1,2). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
R.C.A. - Civil Appeal
CNR: MHBU010016612017
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
999/2017
Filing Date
23-10-2017
Registration No
61/2017
Registration Date
03-11-2017
Court
District and Session Court Buldhana
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Buldana
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ranjana Prakash Jadhao
Adv. Deokar RD
Respondent(s)
Kaushalyabai Tukaram Thombre Advocate - Badge RW
Kundlik Tukaram Thombre
Nandkishor Tukaram Thombre
Hariba Tukaram Thombre
Kalavati Kashinath Gawai
Shantabai Omkar Thombre
Kanta Bhagwan Gaikwad
Dnyaneshwar Omkar Thombre
Keshao Omkar Thombre
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Buldana
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Arguments | |
| 22-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 21-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 07-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Summary: The application filed by the plaintiff-appellant Rajana seeking to stay the execution of the trial court's decree in RCS No. 131/2008 has been rejected. The trial court had dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and perpetual injunction and allowed the defendant's counter-claim, finding that the respondent (defendant Kaushalyabai) was in actual possession of the suit property, not the appellant, despite mutation entries favoring the plaintiff. The appellate court upheld this finding, noting that mere revenue entries cannot prove possession when the vendor himself admitted having no actual possession of the land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The application filed by the plaintiff-appellant Rajana seeking to stay the execution of the trial court's decree in RCS No. 131/2008 has been rejected. The trial court had dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and perpetual injunction and allowed the defendant's counter-claim, finding that the respondent (defendant Kaushalyabai) was in actual possession of the suit property, not the appellant, despite mutation entries favoring the plaintiff. The appellate court upheld this finding, noting that mere revenue entries cannot prove possession when the vendor himself admitted having no actual possession of the land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts