Narayan Raghoji Adhau vs Devidas Narayan Thakare and 2 Advocate - RATHOD PAWAN DAYARAM — 8/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Disposed: Contested--PLAINT REJECTED on 16th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHWS090001272020
Filing Number
17/2020
Filing Date
13-02-2020
Registration No
8/2020
Registration Date
13-02-2020
Court
Civil Court Junior Division, Manora
Judge
4-Jt. Civil Judge, Jr. dn. and JMFC., Manora
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PLAINT REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Narayan Raghoji Adhau
Adv. PAKHALE SAMADHAN NARAYAN
Respondent(s)
Devidas Narayan Thakare and 2 Advocate - RATHOD PAWAN DAYARAM
Bansiram Maroti Sonone
Adv. Ex- Partee
Dnyanehwar Libha Rathod
Adv. KHAN TAHSEEN AHMAD
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Jt. Civil Judge, Jr. dn. and JMFC., Manora
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 05-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 24-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 28-01-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 8/2020 Court Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's suit seeking a permanent injunction against the respondents regarding agricultural land. The petitioner failed to establish valid legal ownership or equitable rights to the disputed property through credible evidence. Key Reasoning: The court found that the petitioner could not prove (1) that he held the land as a pledgee under a money-lending arrangement with Respondent 1, (2) that Respondent 1 promised to return the land after repayment, or (3) that he suffered irreparable harm justifying an injunction. The registered sale deed of 2004 establishing Respondent 1's ownership and the subsequent 2020 sale deed to Respondent 3 were valid and undisputed. Without proof of legal entitlement, the court denied the injunction request and awarded costs against the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 8/2020 Court Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's suit seeking a permanent injunction against the respondents regarding agricultural land. The petitioner failed to establish valid legal ownership or equitable rights to the disputed property through credible evidence. Key Reasoning: The court found that the petitioner could not prove (1) that he held the land as a pledgee under a money-lending arrangement with Respondent 1, (2) that Respondent 1 promised to return the land after repayment, or (3) that he suffered irreparable harm justifying an injunction. The registered sale deed of 2004 establishing Respondent 1's ownership and the subsequent 2020 sale deed to Respondent 3 were valid and undisputed. Without proof of legal entitlement, the court denied the injunction request and awarded costs against the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts