Kashinath Namdeo Bharitkar vs Sandeep Dattatraya Chothave Advocate - Dhumal K. D. — 20/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 13th April 2026.
R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal
CNR: MHAH070001502017
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
66/2017
Filing Date
04-03-2017
Registration No
20/2017
Registration Date
06-03-2017
Court
District and Session Court , Sangamner
Judge
8-District Judge 2 and Additional Sessions Judge,Sangamner
Decision Date
13th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kashinath Namdeo Bharitkar
Adv. Malpani P. R.
Meerabai Kashinath Bharitkar
Adv. Malpani P. R.
Gorakshnath Kashinath Bharitkar
Respondent(s)
Sandeep Dattatraya Chothave Advocate - Dhumal K. D.
Ravindra Dattatray Chothave
Taluka Inspector of Land Records Akole
District Supritendant of Land Records Ahmedangar
Tahsildar Akole
State of Maharashtra, Through Collector Ahmednagar
Hearing History
Judge: 8-District Judge 2 and Additional Sessions Judge,Sangamner
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-04-2026 | Judgment | |
| 27-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 25-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District Court of Sangamner partially allowed the appeal, modifying the trial court's judgment on a property dispute involving land subdivision errors. The court upheld that revenue records contained a clerical error showing excess "potkharaba" (waste land) of 0H 40R in the defendants' favor, and directed revenue authorities to correct the records per Mutation Entry No. 722, while rejecting claims of encroachment and adverse possession due to insufficient proof without proper subdivision measurement maps. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The District Court of Sangamner partially allowed the appeal, modifying the trial court's judgment on a property dispute involving land subdivision errors. The court upheld that revenue records contained a clerical error showing excess "potkharaba" (waste land) of 0H 40R in the defendants' favor, and directed revenue authorities to correct the records per Mutation Entry No. 722, while rejecting claims of encroachment and adverse possession due to insufficient proof without proper subdivision measurement maps. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts