Anandrao Govind Wagh, etc.7 vs Rukmini Vitthal Kumbhar, etc.1 Advocate - Pawar D.L. — 163/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Injunction. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 28th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHST150013122018
Next Hearing
28th March 2026
Filing Number
1300175/2018
Filing Date
04-07-2018
Registration No
163/2018
Registration Date
04-07-2018
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Vaduj
Judge
1-Jt. C.J.J.D and J.M.F.C. Vaduj
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Anandrao Govind Wagh, etc.7
Adv. Shinde D.S.
Patangrao Govind Wagh
Adv. Shinde D.S.
Chandrakant Govind Wagh
Mohan Tukaram Wagh
Adv. Shinde D.S.
Machindra Tukaram Wagh
Adv. Shinde D.S.
Lalasaheb Tukaram Wagh
Adv. Shinde D.S.
Gorakh Arjun Wagh
Adv. Shinde D.S.
Suresh Arjun Wagh
Adv. Shinde D.S.
Respondent(s)
Rukmini Vitthal Kumbhar, etc.1 Advocate - Pawar D.L.
Mangesh Rajaram Kumbhar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Jt. C.J.J.D and J.M.F.C. Vaduj
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 05-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 08-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 28-11-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 17-10-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary This is a civil property dispute case (RRM No. 163/2018) decided by the Vaduj District Court in Marathi. The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the respondents' rights over the disputed property. The court found that the respondents were entitled to possess the land based on gram panchayat (village council) records showing them as legitimate landholders, and the petitioner failed to establish clear ownership or prior possession. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of unauthorized encroachment by the respondents and dismissed all relief sought in the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a civil property dispute case (RRM No. 163/2018) decided by the Vaduj District Court in Marathi. The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the respondents' rights over the disputed property. The court found that the respondents were entitled to possess the land based on gram panchayat (village council) records showing them as legitimate landholders, and the petitioner failed to establish clear ownership or prior possession. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of unauthorized encroachment by the respondents and dismissed all relief sought in the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts