shivaji Tukaram parade(Legal Heir) vs Baban shivram Parade, etc. Advocate - Deo Suhas B. — 139/2019
Case under Hindu Succession Act Section 6. Status: Defence Evidence. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO100001002019
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
Filing Number
182/2019
Filing Date
24-01-2019
Registration No
139/2019
Registration Date
24-01-2019
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Malshiras
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division Malshiras
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
shivaji Tukaram parade(Legal Heir)
Adv. Barge Ranajit Shashikant
Respondent(s)
Baban shivram Parade, etc. Advocate - Deo Suhas B.
Ankush shivram parade
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Malshiras
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 13-02-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 09-01-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 23-12-2025 | Defence Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS 139/2019 The court rejected the defendants' application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the plaintiff from interfering with their possession of the disputed property and obstructing repair work. The judge found the defendants lacked prima facie title to the property, having received it only as licensees under permissive possession, which was subsequently cancelled. Since temporary injunctions under CPC Order 39, Rule 1(c) can only be granted to plaintiffs and not defendants, the application was deemed legally untenable and dismissed with costs awarded in cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCS 139/2019 The court rejected the defendants' application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the plaintiff from interfering with their possession of the disputed property and obstructing repair work. The judge found the defendants lacked prima facie title to the property, having received it only as licensees under permissive possession, which was subsequently cancelled. Since temporary injunctions under CPC Order 39, Rule 1(c) can only be granted to plaintiffs and not defendants, the application was deemed legally untenable and dismissed with costs awarded in cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts