Indubai Krushna Patil vs Balwant Krushna Patil Advocate - Suresh K. Patil — 101/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,37. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 29th July 2026.

R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit

CNR: MHKO190003782025

Issues

Next Hearing

29th July 2026

e-Filing Number

30-05-2025

Filing Number

131/2025

Filing Date

30-05-2025

Registration No

101/2025

Registration Date

30-05-2025

Court

Civil and Criminal Court , Radhanagari

Judge

5-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Radhanagari

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act Section 34,37

Petitioner(s)

Indubai Krushna Patil

Adv. D. M. Potdar

Respondent(s)

Balwant Krushna Patil Advocate - Suresh K. Patil

Hearing History

Judge: 5-Jt. CJJD and JMFC Radhanagari

21-04-2026

Issues

15-04-2026

Order on Exh

01-04-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

16-03-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

27-02-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

Interim Orders

21-04-2026
Order on T.I.

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 101/2025 The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of plaintiff Indubai Krushna Patil. Defendants (her son Balwant and his wife) are restrained from obstructing her possession of four properties—Blocks 20, 22, 319, and Grampanchayat Property 184—until final disposal of the suit. The plaintiff claims these are self-acquired properties purchased with gifts from her husband, while disputing a 2012 partition deed as fraudulently obtained. The court found a prima facie case, balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff, and risk of irreparable injury if restraint was denied, without determining ultimate ownership rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 101/2025 The court granted a temporary injunction in favor of plaintiff Indubai Krushna Patil. Defendants (her son Balwant and his wife) are restrained from obstructing her possession of four properties—Blocks 20, 22, 319, and Grampanchayat Property 184—until final disposal of the suit. The plaintiff claims these are self-acquired properties purchased with gifts from her husband, while disputing a 2012 partition deed as fraudulently obtained. The court found a prima facie case, balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff, and risk of irreparable injury if restraint was denied, without determining ultimate ownership rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil and Criminal Court , Radhanagari All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case