Sitabai Ramdas Gunjal vs The State of Maharashtra through District Collector Ahmednagar Advocate - NIL — 69/2024
Case under Hindu Succession Act Section 8. Disposed: Uncontested--COMPROMISE BEFORE EVIDENCE on 12th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHAH080000842024
e-Filing Number
10-01-2024
Filing Number
85/2024
Filing Date
11-01-2024
Registration No
69/2024
Registration Date
16-01-2024
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Sangamner
Judge
7-3rd Jt Civil Judge Senior Division and Addl. CJM
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--COMPROMISE BEFORE EVIDENCE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sitabai Ramdas Gunjal
Adv. Shaikh S. A.
Respondent(s)
The State of Maharashtra through District Collector Ahmednagar Advocate - NIL
The Executive Engineer National Highway Department Nashik
The Sub Divisional Officer Sangamner
Karbhari Bhima Varpe
Omkar Ashok Varpe
Piyush Ashok VarpeRepresented by Guardian - Ashok Karbhari Varpe
Ashok Karbhari Varpe
Hearing History
Judge: 7-3rd Jt Civil Judge Senior Division and Addl. CJM
Disposed
Order
Order
Order
A. D. R.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Order | |
| 04-03-2026 | Order | |
| 25-02-2026 | Order | |
| 21-02-2026 | A. D. R. |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court decreed RCS No. 69/2024 as a compromise decree in accordance with the settlement agreement signed by the plaintiff and eight defendants regarding partition of agricultural land in village Khandgaon, Ahmednagar. The court found the compromise agreement lawful and executed in compliance with Order XXIII Rule 3 of the C.P.C., and accordingly disposed of the proceedings with the compromise terms forming part of the decree. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The court decreed RCS No. 69/2024 as a compromise decree in accordance with the settlement agreement signed by the plaintiff and eight defendants regarding partition of agricultural land in village Khandgaon, Ahmednagar. The court found the compromise agreement lawful and executed in compliance with Order XXIII Rule 3 of the C.P.C., and accordingly disposed of the proceedings with the compromise terms forming part of the decree. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts