Eknath Laxman Khodke vs Narayan Ganpati Khodke — 42/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal

CNR: MHWS010012782024

e-Filing Number

08-11-2024

Filing Number

765/2024

Filing Date

12-Nov-2024

Registration No

42/2024

Registration Date

13-Nov-2024

Court

District and Sessions Court, Washim

Judge

6-District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Eknath Laxman Khodke

    Adv. HIWRALE RITESH ATMARAM

  2. 2.Kailas Eknath Khodke

    Adv. HIWRALE RITESH ATMARAM

  3. 3.Gajanan Eknath Khodke

    Adv. HIWRALE RITESH ATMARAM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Narayan Ganpati Khodke

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: Regular Civil Appeal No. 42/2024 The District Judge dismissed the appellants' appeal and upheld the lower court's decree granting Narayan Ganpati Khodke a permanent injunction against Eknath Laxman Khodke and his brothers. The court found that Khodke's registered sale-deed (dated 13/04/1972) and revenue records conclusively established his ownership and possession of the disputed agricultural land in Dhodap village, Washim district. The appellants' counterclaim that the property was purchased from joint family income and given to them through oral partition lacked supporting evidence. The court held that the appellants' assertion of possession and their challenge to Khodke's rights constituted obstruction, warranting the injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  4. 02-May-2026

    Judgment

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  5. 28-Apr-2026

    Judgment

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  6. 16-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  7. 08-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  8. 16-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  9. 18-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  10. 10-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  11. 02-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  12. 30-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  13. 08-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  14. 14-Nov-2025

    Reply/Say

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  15. 10-Oct-2025

    Reply/Say

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  16. 08-Sep-2025

    Reply/Say

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  17. 06-Aug-2025

    Reply/Say

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  18. 03-Jul-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  19. 07-May-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  20. 04-Mar-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  21. 22-Jan-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  22. 21-Dec-2024

    Awaiting Notice

    District Judge-1 and Asj, Washim

  23. 14-Nov-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 12-Nov-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 42/2024

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: Regular Civil Appeal No. 42/2024 The District Judge dismissed the appellants' appeal and upheld the lower court's decree granting Narayan Ganpati Khodke a permanent injunction against Eknath Laxman Khodke and his brothers. The court found that Khodke's registered sale-deed (dated 13/04/1972) and revenue records conclusively established his ownership and possession of the disputed agricultural land in Dhodap village, Washim district. The appellants' counterclaim that the property was purchased from joint family income and given to them through oral partition lacked supporting evidence. The court held that the appellants' assertion of possession and their challenge to Khodke's rights constituted obstruction, warranting the injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case