Ratnabai Narayan wagh vs Subhash Sambhaji Wagh Advocate - Jagdale A.N. — 7/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Declaration. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST110000152019
Next Hearing
24th April 2026
Filing Number
9/2019
Filing Date
22-01-2019
Registration No
7/2019
Registration Date
22-01-2019
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Medha
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C. Medha
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ratnabai Narayan wagh
Adv. Mane M.S.
Dilip Narayan wagh
Respondent(s)
Subhash Sambhaji Wagh Advocate - Jagdale A.N.
Shivaji Sambhaji Wagh
Adv. Jagdale A.N.
Tanaji Pandurang wagh
Dattatray pandurang wagh
Sayaji pandurang Wagh
Rajendra Pandurang Wagh
Minita Vijay Dhole
smt Subhadra Panduran Wagh
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C. Medha
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 20-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 16-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 12-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The petition filed by the plaintiff for partition and possession of ancestral property in Kudal village, Satara district, was dismissed. The court found the plaintiff's claims of heirship and rights over the disputed property to be false and fabricated, noting that the property division had already been finalized in an earlier case (R.I.M. No. 34/1999) where defendants 1 and 2 were recognized as rightful owners, with no share allocated to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The petition filed by the plaintiff for partition and possession of ancestral property in Kudal village, Satara district, was dismissed. The court found the plaintiff's claims of heirship and rights over the disputed property to be false and fabricated, noting that the property division had already been finalized in an earlier case (R.I.M. No. 34/1999) where defendants 1 and 2 were recognized as rightful owners, with no share allocated to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts