Smt. Sitabai Laxman Gaikwad vs Smt. Sonibai Laxman Gaikwad and other Advocate - Patil Dhananjay Y — 74/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 28th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHNS180010332016
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
111/2016
Filing Date
21-09-2016
Registration No
74/2016
Registration Date
21-09-2016
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Kalwan
Judge
2-JOINT CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Smt. Sitabai Laxman Gaikwad
Adv. Junnare Vijay N.
Respondent(s)
Smt. Sonibai Laxman Gaikwad and other Advocate - Patil Dhananjay Y
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JOINT CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 20-01-2026 | Arguments | |
| 06-01-2026 | Arguments | |
| 16-12-2025 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court decided to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against the defendants regarding disputed agricultural property in Village Verul, Kalwan Taluka, Nashik District. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove she is the sole owner of the disputed property and that the defendants' possession is unlawful, as the property records show the defendants have legitimate claims through legal succession and property partitions dating back to 1992. The court also ordered the plaintiff to bear her own litigation costs and pay the defendants' costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court decided to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against the defendants regarding disputed agricultural property in Village Verul, Kalwan Taluka, Nashik District. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove she is the sole owner of the disputed property and that the defendants' possession is unlawful, as the property records show the defendants have legitimate claims through legal succession and property partitions dating back to 1992. The court also ordered the plaintiff to bear her own litigation costs and pay the defendants' costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts