Balkrushna Shankar Kamble vs Sudhakar Bharat Bhadakwad — 555/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 38. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 29th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO130006822021
Filing Number
776/2021
Filing Date
12-10-2021
Registration No
555/2021
Registration Date
13-10-2021
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Barshi
Judge
3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and JMFC Barshi
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Balkrushna Shankar Kamble
Adv. Gund Ranajeet N
Respondent(s)
Sudhakar Bharat Bhadakwad
Hearing History
Judge: 3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and JMFC Barshi
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Judgment
Judgment
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 24-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 17-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 10-04-2026 | Judgment |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 555/2021 Court Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application for a permanent injunction against the respondent. The petitioner failed to prove legitimate ownership of the disputed agricultural property and could not substantiate claims that the respondent was unlawfully obstructing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. Key Reasoning: Although the petitioner produced a 7/12 land record extract and a sale deed from 2000 suggesting his purchase, he did not adequately prove actual physical possession or exclusive control of the property. The respondent's counter-claim that the property was mortgaged as security for a loan (with the mortgagee maintaining control) remained unrefuted. Without proving lawful possession before seeking the injunction, the petitioner's case for restraining the respondent failed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 555/2021 Court Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application for a permanent injunction against the respondent. The petitioner failed to prove legitimate ownership of the disputed agricultural property and could not substantiate claims that the respondent was unlawfully obstructing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. Key Reasoning: Although the petitioner produced a 7/12 land record extract and a sale deed from 2000 suggesting his purchase, he did not adequately prove actual physical possession or exclusive control of the property. The respondent's counter-claim that the property was mortgaged as security for a loan (with the mortgagee maintaining control) remained unrefuted. Without proving lawful possession before seeking the injunction, the petitioner's case for restraining the respondent failed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts