Aasha Avadhut Kathole vs Sushila Digamber Kathole Advocate - Dhanokar PK — 14/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 36,37,34,38. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHBU070005922024
e-Filing Number
02-05-2024
Filing Number
223/2024
Filing Date
03-May-2024
Registration No
14/2024
Registration Date
03-May-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , shegaon
Judge
2-Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
Last updated 20-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Aasha Avadhut Kathole
Adv. HAGE AJAY MOTIRAM
-
2.Arun Avadhut Kathole
Adv. HAGE AJAY MOTIRAM
-
3.Sunil Avadhut Kathole
Adv. HAGE AJAY MOTIRAM
-
4.Ujwala Pravin Masne
Adv. HAGE AJAY MOTIRAM
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sushila Digamber Kathole Advocate - Dhanokar PK
-
2.Gajanan Digamber Kathole
Adv. Dhanokar PK
-
3.Jyoti Ganesh Ghatol
-
4.Nilima Nagesh Ghatol
-
5.Sulabha Dattatray Kathole
Adv. Dhanokar PK
-
6.Shobha Dattatray Kathole
-
7.Pankaj Dattatray Kathole
Adv. Dhanokar PK
-
8.Dhiraj Dattatray Kathole
Adv. Dhanokar PK
-
9.Shraddha Nikhil Khalokar
Adv. Dhanokar PK
-
10.Mankarnabai Anand Ghatol
Adv. Dhanokar PK
Case History
-
15-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
04-Apr-2026
Order on T.I.View PDF
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for a temporary injunction seeking to restrain defendants from disturbing their possession of ancestral property in Buldhana district. The court found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as they were aware of the 2015 will deed (evidenced by their 2020 mutation objection) yet claimed first learning of it in 2024, and could not demonstrate actual possession of the suit property. The registered will deed in defendants' favor carries presumption of validity under law, placing the burden on plaintiffs to prove otherwise through trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-Apr-2026
Issues
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
24-Mar-2026
Citation
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
11-Mar-2026
Citation
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
23-Feb-2026
Citation
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
06-Feb-2026
Citation
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
05-Jan-2026
Citation
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
02-Dec-2025
Hearing
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
01-Nov-2025
Hearing
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
23-Sep-2025
Hearing
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
26-Aug-2025
Hearing
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
25-Jul-2025
Hearing
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
27-Jun-2025
Hearing
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
02-May-2025
Hearing
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
28-Mar-2025
Hearing
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
25-Feb-2025
Written Statement
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
24-Jan-2025
Written Statement
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
21-Dec-2024
Awaiting Notice
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
12-Nov-2024
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
12-Nov-2024
Awaiting Notice
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
11-Oct-2024
Awaiting Notice
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
21-Sep-2024
Order
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
04-Sep-2024
Awaiting Notice
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
23-Aug-2024
Hearing
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
26-Jul-2024
W.S. and Say
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
21-Jun-2024
Awaiting Notice
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Shegaon.
-
03-May-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-May-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 14/2024
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for a temporary injunction seeking to restrain defendants from disturbing their possession of ancestral property in Buldhana district. The court found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as they were aware of the 2015 will deed (evidenced by their 2020 mutation objection) yet claimed first learning of it in 2024, and could not demonstrate actual possession of the suit property. The registered will deed in defendants' favor carries presumption of validity under law, placing the burden on plaintiffs to prove otherwise through trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts