Rajanbai Bhagwandas Asati and other 10 vs Sahesram Shivram Agre Advocate - Yadao A.P. — 27/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 20. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 11th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHGO080006582020
Filing Number
66/2020
Filing Date
10-08-2020
Registration No
27/2020
Registration Date
10-08-2020
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Tirora
Judge
1-Civil Judge Junior Division Tirora
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajanbai Bhagwandas Asati and other 10
Adv. Malewar A.R.
Ashok Bhagawandas Asati
Adv. Malewar A.R.
Ravikumar Bhagwandas Asati,
Adv. Malewar A.R.
Kailash Bhagawandas Asati
Adv. Malewar A.R.
Kishor Bhagavandas Asati
Adv. Malewar A.R.
Nitin Ramgopal Asati
Adv. Malewar A.R.
Shobha Ramgopal Asati
Adv. Malewar A.R.
Naresh Bhagawandas Asati
Adv. Malewar A.R.
Sanjay Bhagawandad Asati
Adv. Malewar A.R.
Usha Sanjay Asati
Adv. Malewar A.R.
Pushpa Mahendra Asati
Adv. Malewar A.R.
Respondent(s)
Sahesram Shivram Agre Advocate - Yadao A.P.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Junior Division Tirora
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 25-02-2026 | Judgment |
| 17-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 10-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration, mandatory, and permanent injunction against the defendant's construction on disputed land. The court found that plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the disputed property (Nagar Bhumapan No. 270) or that they had left a pathway for common use, as the sale deed made no mention of any such way and the defendant produced documentary evidence (Sanad certificates and property records) establishing his ownership of the land in question. Each party bears its own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration, mandatory, and permanent injunction against the defendant's construction on disputed land. The court found that plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the disputed property (Nagar Bhumapan No. 270) or that they had left a pathway for common use, as the sale deed made no mention of any such way and the defendant produced documentary evidence (Sanad certificates and property records) establishing his ownership of the land in question. Each party bears its own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts