Bhimashankar Govind Ligade vs Shivkanya Charudatta Sakhare Advocate - Kulkarni M.V. — 62/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Decleration. Status: Argument on Exh.____Ready. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHST180006812019
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
679/2019
Filing Date
31-12-2019
Registration No
62/2019
Registration Date
31-12-2019
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Vaduj
Judge
3-2nd Jt CJSD and Addl CJM Vaduj
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhimashankar Govind Ligade
Adv. Godse P.S.
Respondent(s)
Shivkanya Charudatta Sakhare Advocate - Kulkarni M.V.
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2nd Jt CJSD and Addl CJM Vaduj
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 23-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 09-02-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 23-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 12-01-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY The Court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from obstructing his possession of the suit property. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the power of attorney deed executed in his favor was silent on any agreement to sell and lacked the requisite registration mandated under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The balance of convenience favored the defendant (purchaser), who had acquired the property through a registered sale deed and held valid mutation rights in the city survey records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY The Court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from obstructing his possession of the suit property. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the power of attorney deed executed in his favor was silent on any agreement to sell and lacked the requisite registration mandated under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The balance of convenience favored the defendant (purchaser), who had acquired the property through a registered sale deed and held valid mutation rights in the city survey records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts