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
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
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
Issues
Order on Exh
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts