Vilas Laxman Palvankar vs Sudhir Laxman Palvankar Advocate - Deshpande A.V. — 25/2021
Case under Specific Relief (amendment) Act Section 34,37. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 12th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHRG120003202021
Filing Number
73/2021
Filing Date
14-10-2021
Registration No
25/2021
Registration Date
14-10-2021
Court
Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C.,Murud
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr. Dvn. and J. M. F. C. Murud
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vilas Laxman Palvankar
Adv. Tambadkar M. J.
Respondent(s)
Sudhir Laxman Palvankar Advocate - Deshpande A.V.
Aniket Sudhir Palvankar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr. Dvn. and J. M. F. C. Murud
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Amended Plaint
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 22-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 05-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 01-01-2026 | Amended Plaint |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Vilas Laxman Palvankar v. Sudhir Laxman Palvankar Decision: The court partially allowed the petitioner's claim and partially allowed the respondent's counter-claim. The petitioner was declared the owner of 0-26-25 hectares (southern portion) of the disputed land at Kolamandla, Murud, while Respondent 1 was declared owner of the northern 0-26-25 hectares portion, as per the registered partition deed of 16.01.2017. However, the court declined to grant perpetual injunctions against mutual interference as requested, finding insufficient evidence of actual obstruction between parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Vilas Laxman Palvankar v. Sudhir Laxman Palvankar Decision: The court partially allowed the petitioner's claim and partially allowed the respondent's counter-claim. The petitioner was declared the owner of 0-26-25 hectares (southern portion) of the disputed land at Kolamandla, Murud, while Respondent 1 was declared owner of the northern 0-26-25 hectares portion, as per the registered partition deed of 16.01.2017. However, the court declined to grant perpetual injunctions against mutual interference as requested, finding insufficient evidence of actual obstruction between parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts