Tukaram Shivram Awte Alias Kabale vs Gajanan Maruti Magdum — 191/2023
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO130013812023
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
e-Filing Number
01-11-2023
Filing Number
370/2023
Filing Date
02-11-2023
Registration No
191/2023
Registration Date
07-11-2023
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Kagal
Judge
10-Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Tukaram Shivram Awte Alias Kabale
Adv. S. G. shinde
Suresh Shivram Awte@kamble
Sambhaji Vithuawte @ kamble
Jambu Vithu Awte @ Kamble
Balwant Vithu Awte @ Kamble
Respondent(s)
Gajanan Maruti Magdum
Dadaso Maruti Magadum
Bhagubai Maruti Magdum
Mangal Hindurao Ramse
Siddhaji Maruti Magdum
Hearing History
Judge: 10-Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Kagal.-2
Evidence
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 02-04-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 20-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 10-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready | |
| 16-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
Interim Orders
Summary The petition (Petition No. 05) is allowed/granted. The court held that the petitioner (plaintiff) has established prima facie possession of the agricultural property in question and that the respondent (defendant) is obstructing the petitioner's rightful possession. The court directed that the respondent shall not transfer or sell the property and must not obstruct the petitioner's possession until the final decision of the case. No cost order was imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The petition (Petition No. 05) is allowed/granted. The court held that the petitioner (plaintiff) has established prima facie possession of the agricultural property in question and that the respondent (defendant) is obstructing the petitioner's rightful possession. The court directed that the respondent shall not transfer or sell the property and must not obstruct the petitioner's possession until the final decision of the case. No cost order was imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts