MUKTABAI vs DASHRATH ABA GUNGE (DEAD). — C.A. No. 981/2013
Case under Section III. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010007152005
Filing Date
07-Jan-2005
Registration No
C.A. No. 981/2013
Diary Number
715/2005
Order Date
13-Jul-2017
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MUKTABAI
Adv. SRIDHAR POTARAJU (Dead / Retired / Elevated)
Respondent(s)
-
1.DASHRATH ABA GUNGE (DEAD).
Adv. SHREE PAL SINGH
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Jul-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Jul-2017
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
-
03-Nov-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Nov-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Aug-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Aug-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Feb-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-May-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Sep-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Apr-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Mar-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Dec-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Nov-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Sep-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Apr-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Mar-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Feb-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Jan-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Nov-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Nov-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Sep-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Aug-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Jan-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-May-2005
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Feb-2005
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Jan-2005
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 981/2013
Case Summary: Muktabai v. Dashrath Aba Gunge The Supreme Court dismissed Muktabai's appeal challenging a specific performance decree favoring the respondent for enforcement of a 1969 agreement to sell property. The Court upheld the High Court's finding that Muktabai, as defendant No. 3 and daughter of one original defendant, was not a bona fide purchaser and lacked standing to challenge the decree after her father and uncle failed to appeal it. The Court protected her potential inheritance rights while clarifying that her 1979 sale deed would not impede execution of the decree in favor of respondent No. 1. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts