Kishan so Apparao Bhosale vs Suryakant so Shivram Jadhav and 2 Advocate - Kulkarni Shivaji G — 1700027/2013
Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING on 06th May 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA150000562013
Filing Number
1700027/2013
Filing Date
01-03-2013
Registration No
1700027/2013
Registration Date
02-03-2013
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Chakur
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Chakur
Decision Date
06th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING
Petitioner(s)
Kishan so Apparao Bhosale
Adv. Whatte Sujitkumar B
Respondent(s)
Suryakant so Shivram Jadhav and 2 Advocate - Kulkarni Shivaji G
Narayan So Shivram Jadhav
Adv. S.G. Kulkarni
Vinayak So Shivram Jadhav
Adv. Mule Shivaji P
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C. Chakur
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 29-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 20-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 04-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Kishan v. Suryakant & Ors. (Civil Suit 27/2013) The Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction over a gram panchayat property in Hali village. The court found that defendants produced a registered sale deed from 1981 (dated 07.08.1981) showing plaintiff's deceased father sold the property to defendant no.1 for Rs.2,000, while plaintiff failed to challenge its validity and relied only on revenue records (namuna no.8), which are not conclusive proof of title. The court concluded plaintiff did not prove ownership, possession, or that defendants obstructed his possession, dismissing the suit with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Kishan v. Suryakant & Ors. (Civil Suit 27/2013) The Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction over a gram panchayat property in Hali village. The court found that defendants produced a registered sale deed from 1981 (dated 07.08.1981) showing plaintiff's deceased father sold the property to defendant no.1 for Rs.2,000, while plaintiff failed to challenge its validity and relied only on revenue records (namuna no.8), which are not conclusive proof of title. The court concluded plaintiff did not prove ownership, possession, or that defendants obstructed his possession, dismissing the suit with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts