SHRI. BABU CHANGYA PATIL (DEAD) AND OTHERS(Legal Heir) PRASAD S. DANI, P.S. DANI FOR PETITIONER,(V. P. for Appellant),VP FOR APPELLANT,Jui Arvind Nerurkar,PRASAD B KULKARNI,Anand S Patil1. vs SMT. BHAGIBAI PHULAJI MHASKER (DEAD) AND OTHERS — SA/513/2013

Case under C.p.c.- (non-interlocutory Order) Section ---. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 27th April 2026.

CNR: HCBM010152762013

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

10th May 2013

Filing Number

SA/10757/2013

Filing Date

04-04-2013

Registration No

SA/513/2013

Registration Date

19-08-2013

Judge

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE

Coram

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE

Bench Type

Single

Category

SUITS ( 38 )

Sub-Category

FOR PARTITION ( 5 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

27th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Acts & Sections

C.P.C.- (Non-Interlocutory Order) Section ---
Indian Evidence Act Section ---
Registration Act, 1908 Section ---

Petitioner(s)

SHRI. BABU CHANGYA PATIL (DEAD) AND OTHERS(Legal Heir) PRASAD S. DANI, P.S. DANI FOR PETITIONER,(V. P. for Appellant),VP FOR APPELLANT,Jui Arvind Nerurkar,PRASAD B KULKARNI,Anand S Patil1.

NANUBAI BABU PATIL (DEAD)1.

KAMALAKAR BABU PATIL1.

MADHUKAR BABU PATIL1.

GULAB BALKRUSHNA THAKUR1.

TARABAI TRIMBAK PORAJI1.

CHANDRAKANT CHANDRASHEKHAR THAKUR1.

MANDABI HASURAM THAKUR1.

VITHABAI BALKRUSHNA GAVAND (DEAD)1.8.

MANISH BALKRUSHNA GAVAND1.8.

SANTOSH BALKRUSHNA GAVAND1.8.

SANDESH BALKRUSHNA GAVAND1.

RADHABAI CHANDRAKANT PATIL1.

GAYATRI GANPAT MHATRE

GULAB BALKRUSHNA THAKUR

Respondent(s)

SMT. BHAGIBAI PHULAJI MHASKER (DEAD) AND OTHERS

Adv. V.P. FOR RESP. NO. 1 TO 7,R NO 1, 2, 3-1 TO 3-3, 4 TO 7, 8-1, 8-2, 11 TO 15,,18, 20, 21 ARE SERVED.,(V.P. for Resp. No. 12 to 16 &

,(V.P. for Resp. 8-1,8-2,9 &

,S.A. STAND ABATED AS AGAINST R.NO.19 VIDE REG. ,J.(II) ORDER DT. 11/3/2014.,SA STAND ABATED AS AGAINST EXPIRED R NO 12 VIDE,COURTS ORDER DT 20/10/15 & 26/10/15.,RESPONDENT NO. 12/1, TO 12/3,VIJAY SUHAS GHARAT,WARUNJIKAR UDAY PRAKASH,WARUNJIKAR UDAY PRAKASH 1123

SHRI KESHAV PHULAJI MHASKAR

SMT. RAJANI JAGANNATH THAKUR

SHRI HASURAM PHULAJI MHASKAR (DECD THR HEIRS)(Legal Heir)4.

SHRI RAJU HASURAM MHASKAR4.

KUM. POOJA HASURAM MHASKAR4.

KUM PRIYA HASURAM MHASKAR

SMT. JAYA RAJAN THAKUR

SMT. HIRAWATI BALARAM PATIL

SHRI NARAYAN DEEPAK THAKUR

SMT. LILAVATI MANGESH MHATRE

SHRI GANANATH BHARAT PATIL (DEAD)(Legal Heir)9.

SHARAD GANANATH PATIL9.

SARITA ESARAM MHATRE

SAU. KRISHNABAI GOPINATH BIRJE

SMT. ANUTAI KASHINATH PATIL (DEAD)

SAU. SHAILA SHANTARAM GHARAT

SHRI JANBA DEVBA PATIL

SHRI DHANESHWAR DEVBA PATIL

SHRI NIVRUTTI DEVBA PATIL

SHRI VIJAY DEVBA PATIL

SHRI KHUSHAL DEVBA PATIL (DEAD)

SMT. LAXMIBAI DEVBA PATIL (DEAD)

SAU. HIRABAI ANANT GHARAT

MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH

SMT. SHARADA PRATAP SINGH

SMT. JAYA PRAKASH SINGH

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE

10-05-2013

FOR ORDERS

27-04-2026

FOR ADMISSION

26-08-2025

FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS)

22-07-2025

FOR SETTLEMENT / CONSENT TERMS

28-04-2025

-ADMISSION

Orders

11-03-2014
27-04-2026
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE

Court Decision Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the first appellate court's judgment granting the plaintiff a 1/3 share in ancestral joint family properties. The court rejected the defendants' claim that unregistered partition documents proved Sitaram (the plaintiff's father) had relinquished his share, finding that the documents' contents were never proven through oral evidence and that mere separate possession could not establish a valid partition by metes and bounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Bombay High Court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the first appellate court's judgment granting the plaintiff a 1/3 share in ancestral joint family properties. The court rejected the defendants' claim that unregistered partition documents proved Sitaram (the plaintiff's father) had relinquished his share, finding that the documents' contents were never proven through oral evidence and that mere separate possession could not establish a valid partition by metes and bounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case