Gulabrao Raosaheb Anande vs Baburao Sopanrao Anande Advocate - BHOSLE K.G. — 84/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 08th May 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHJN080006512017
Filing Number
138/2017
Filing Date
26-10-2017
Registration No
84/2017
Registration Date
26-10-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Ghansavangi
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C
Decision Date
08th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gulabrao Raosaheb Anande
Adv. DESHMUKH R.S.
Abbasaheb Raosaheb Anande
Adv. DESHMUKH R.S.
Sow.Saraswati Parmeshwar Naik
Adv. DESHMUKH R.S.
Smt. Sojarbai W/o Raosaheb Anande
Adv. DESHMUKH R.S.
Respondent(s)
Baburao Sopanrao Anande Advocate - BHOSLE K.G.
Ganesh Bhagwan Anande
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 14-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 15-01-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of R.C.S. No. 84/2017 The court decreed the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of possession, finding that they are the legal heirs of the original owner (Raosaheb) and thus entitled to the farm land. The court rejected the defendants' adverse possession defense, noting they presented mutually inconsistent pleas (claiming both adverse possession and purchase) and failed to satisfy statutory requirements for adverse possession, including failing to establish hostile possession and producing illegal mutation entries lacking required details. The defendants were directed to handover possession within one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of R.C.S. No. 84/2017 The court decreed the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of possession, finding that they are the legal heirs of the original owner (Raosaheb) and thus entitled to the farm land. The court rejected the defendants' adverse possession defense, noting they presented mutually inconsistent pleas (claiming both adverse possession and purchase) and failed to satisfy statutory requirements for adverse possession, including failing to establish hostile possession and producing illegal mutation entries lacking required details. The defendants were directed to handover possession within one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts