Rajendra Bhupal Madapgol vs Balkabai Kallappa Badame Advocate - A. D. Kallannawar — 120/2016
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 52. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 07th July 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHKO180003942016
Next Hearing
07th July 2026
Filing Number
207/2016
Filing Date
21-07-2016
Registration No
120/2016
Registration Date
21-07-2016
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Kurundwad
Judge
3-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajendra Bhupal Madapgol
Adv. V. S. Sutar
Respondent(s)
Balkabai Kallappa Badame Advocate - A. D. Kallannawar
Mangal Ramchandra Chigare
Shrimanti Datta Arage
Sitabai Satappa Chigare
Rukmini Shamrao Madyagol
Pandurang Kallappa Badame
Ratnabai Pandurang Badame
Milind Pandurang Badame
Shailesh Pandurang Badame
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Kurundwad
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-06-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 01-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 20-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
CASE SUMMARY: RCS No. 120/2016 The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from alienating agricultural property. The plaintiff claimed he had entered into an unregistered agreement to purchase the property from defendant No. 1 on 13/04/2002 for Rs. 1,40,000, paid earnest money of Rs. 1,05,000, and had been in possession since then. The defendant denied the agreement's validity and contended the property was restricted under the Bombay Tenancy Act. Order: Application ALLOWED. The court granted the temporary injunction, finding the plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favor, and risk of irreparable loss. Defendant No. 1 was restrained from alienating the property in any manner until final disposal of the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY: RCS No. 120/2016 The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from alienating agricultural property. The plaintiff claimed he had entered into an unregistered agreement to purchase the property from defendant No. 1 on 13/04/2002 for Rs. 1,40,000, paid earnest money of Rs. 1,05,000, and had been in possession since then. The defendant denied the agreement's validity and contended the property was restricted under the Bombay Tenancy Act. Order: Application ALLOWED. The court granted the temporary injunction, finding the plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favor, and risk of irreparable loss. Defendant No. 1 was restrained from alienating the property in any manner until final disposal of the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts