Laxmi Virendra Kukade and other 1 vs Papita Chandrakant Kukade and other 1 Advocate - Malewar A.R. — 9/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 39. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 22nd April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHGO080001812022
Filing Number
12/2022
Filing Date
01-02-2022
Registration No
9/2022
Registration Date
01-02-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Tirora
Judge
1-Civil Judge Junior Division Tirora
Decision Date
22nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Laxmi Virendra Kukade and other 1
Adv. Shende N.P.
Ramchand Daulat Kukade
Adv. Shende N.P.
Respondent(s)
Papita Chandrakant Kukade and other 1 Advocate - Malewar A.R.
Chandrakant Kamlakar Kukade
Adv. Malewar A.R.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Junior Division Tirora
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 31-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 11-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 24-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tirora decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs Laxmi and Ramchand Kukade, declaring them owners and possessors of 0.02 H.R. and 0.04 H.R. land respectively at Gat No. 258, Kesalwada. The court found that plaintiffs established valid ownership through registered sale deeds and revenue records, proved peaceful possession, and demonstrated that defendants obstructed their possession; consequently, defendants were permanently restrained from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tirora decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs Laxmi and Ramchand Kukade, declaring them owners and possessors of 0.02 H.R. and 0.04 H.R. land respectively at Gat No. 258, Kesalwada. The court found that plaintiffs established valid ownership through registered sale deeds and revenue records, proved peaceful possession, and demonstrated that defendants obstructed their possession; consequently, defendants were permanently restrained from disturbing the plaintiffs' 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