Tanuja Purushottam Bhogle vs Nagesh Balkrishna Bhogale Advocate - PALAV AMIT GANPAT — 107/2025

Summary: The plaintiff's applications for temporary prohibitory and mandatory injunctions (seeking to restrain defendant No.1 from interfering with her possession of ground floor portions and directing him to remove a lock he placed) were rejected. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience did not favor her, primarily because: (1) she did not seek mandatory injunction as a final relief in the suit; (2) she failed to include partition as a relief despite claiming the property is ancestral; and (3) Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act bars granting mere declarations without seeking all appropriate reliefs. Costs awarded to the defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.