Ranjit S/o Laxman Patil vs Surekha wdo Sadashiv Wakade Advocate - P.K. THOTE — 1200042/2009
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Status: Defence Evidence. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHNG110006302009
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
Filing Number
1200042/2009
Filing Date
29-08-2009
Registration No
1200042/2009
Registration Date
29-08-2009
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division , Kuhi
Judge
1-Civil JudgeJr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Kuhi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ranjit S/o Laxman Patil
Adv. R.D. KINDARLEY
Respondent(s)
Surekha wdo Sadashiv Wakade Advocate - P.K. THOTE
Vaishali do Sadashiv Wakade
Sanghapal So Patiram Wakade
Bhimrao so Patiram Wakade(Legal Heir)
Shevanta Prabhakar Ramteke
Sharada Sauraj Ramteke
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil JudgeJr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Kuhi
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 21-04-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 10-04-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 09-04-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 30-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary The petition filed by Ranjit against Suresh regarding agricultural land ownership disputes (Case No. 42/2009) has been dismissed. The court found the plaintiff's testimony regarding plot numbers 248 and 114 at Khoobna to be inconsistent and unconvincing, and rejected his claims regarding historical land possession and revenue record entries. The court held that the defendant's evidence regarding continuous possession and lawful ownership was more credible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The petition filed by Ranjit against Suresh regarding agricultural land ownership disputes (Case No. 42/2009) has been dismissed. The court found the plaintiff's testimony regarding plot numbers 248 and 114 at Khoobna to be inconsistent and unconvincing, and rejected his claims regarding historical land possession and revenue record entries. The court held that the defendant's evidence regarding continuous possession and lawful ownership was more credible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts