Balaso Dnyandev Nangare vs Balaso Laxman Nangare — 175/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Status: Dismissal Order. Next hearing: 07th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST130018652018
Next Hearing
07th April 2026
Filing Number
252/2018
Filing Date
20-12-2018
Registration No
175/2018
Registration Date
24-12-2018
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Patan
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Balaso Dnyandev Nangare
Adv. Gaikwad P.K
Respondent(s)
Balaso Laxman Nangare
Sunil @ Bajarang Ananda Nangare
Ashok Ananda Nangare
Somnath Pandurang Patil
Vithhal Baburao Nangare
Rajendra Dnyandev Nangare
Mohan @ Vijay vishnu Nangare
Rajendra Eknath Nangare
Sharada Ramchandra Pawar
Dadaso Ganpati Nangare
Raghunath Bapu Nangare
Ravindra Hari Nangare
Savita Dadaso Nangare
Arun Ashok Nangare
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Patan
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Hearing Without W.S.
Hearing Without W.S.
Hearing Without W.S.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 21-02-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 16-01-2026 | Hearing Without W.S. |
| 05-12-2025 | Hearing Without W.S. |
| 29-09-2025 | Hearing Without W.S. |
Interim Orders
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction regarding disputed property (33 acres in Gram No. 826, Pune). The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish clear possession and ownership rights over the property as required by law, and the defendant's prior possession and registered ownership records supported the defendant's claim. The case was decided based on documentary evidence, 7/12 records, and precedents establishing that prior settled possession constitutes evidence of title. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction regarding disputed property (33 acres in Gram No. 826, Pune). The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish clear possession and ownership rights over the property as required by law, and the defendant's prior possession and registered ownership records supported the defendant's claim. The case was decided based on documentary evidence, 7/12 records, and precedents establishing that prior settled possession constitutes evidence of title. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts