DATTA NAMDEO CHAVRE AND OTHERS vs VITHHAL S/O NAMDEO CHAVRE AND ANOTHER — MCA/315/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 114R/W47. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 13-Jun-2026

CNR: HCBM040119682026

Filing Number

MCA/8175/2026

Filing Date

06-Apr-2026

Registration No

MCA/315/2026

Registration Date

25-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo Joshi

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 114R/W47

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DATTA NAMDEO CHAVRE AND OTHERS

    Adv. VAIBHAV N PATRE,ANIKET K. CHAVHAN,ANIKET K. CHAVHAN, ,ANIKET K. CHAVHAN

  2. 2.SAU. SUSHILA MAROTRAO JATARKAR

  3. 3.SAU. RAJAS HANWANTRAO CHAVHAN

  4. 4.SAU. DEVKABAI BHARATRAO NARWADE

  5. 5.SAU. PRABHABAI BHARATRAO NARWADE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VITHHAL S/O NAMDEO CHAVRE AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.SAU. RENUKA PANDURANG KALANE (DEAD) THR. LRS(Legal Heir)2.

  3. 3.VIDYA RANJAB KARPE2.

  4. 4.OMPRAKASH S/O. PANDHURANG KALANE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Jun-2026

    —

  3. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Wasudeo JoshiView PDF

    Case Summary: The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) rejected the appellants' review petition in a property partition dispute. The court upheld its earlier judgment dismissing the defendant's claim of a 1986 property exchange with his father, finding no registered deed of exchange as required under the Transfer of Property Act. The court rejected the argument that outdated revenue records constitute grounds for review, noting the unchallenged 2005 sale deed established valid transfer of the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. MCA/315/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) rejected the appellants' review petition in a property partition dispute. The court upheld its earlier judgment dismissing the defendant's claim of a 1986 property exchange with his father, finding no registered deed of exchange as required under the Transfer of Property Act. The court rejected the argument that outdated revenue records constitute grounds for review, noting the unchallenged 2005 sale deed established valid transfer of the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case