Sopan Dadaba Budhwant vs Baban Dadaba Budhwant Advocate - Welde Pratik V. — 1700121/2011
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 22. Disposed: Uncontested--DECIDED EX-PARTE on 10th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHAH200002532011
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1700121/2011
Filing Date
25-04-2011
Registration No
1700121/2011
Registration Date
25-04-2011
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Pathardi
Judge
3-JT. CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C. PATHARDI
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DECIDED EX-PARTE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sopan Dadaba Budhwant
Adv. Saruk S. B.
Respondent(s)
Baban Dadaba Budhwant Advocate - Welde Pratik V.
Adinath Dadaba Budhwant
Adv. NIL
Rakhamabai Dadaba Budhwant
Adv. Welde S. A.
Shantaba Sopan Budhwant
Adv. Welde S. A.
Mathurabai Adinath Budhwant
Adv. NIL
Dropadi Bhujang Palve
Adv. NIL
Sakharbai Babasaheb Choure
Adv. Pathade A. N.
Mathura Babasaheb Shirsath
Adv. Pathade A. N.
Sushila Maruti Budhwant
Adv. NIL
Vimalbai Ramakant Salve
Adv. NIL
Maruti Natha Budhwant
Adv. NIL
Sandip Prakash Gavare
Adv. NIL
Milind Prakash Gavare
Adv. NIL
Smita Prakash Gavare
Adv. NIL
Sharadk Prakash Gavare
Adv. NIL
Dattu Tulshraim Mahadik
Adv. NIL
Kundlik Maruti Gavare
Adv. NIL
Bhaurao Maruti Gavare
Adv. NIL
Vishnu Maruti Gavare
Adv. NIL
Hari Bhau Gaware
Adv. NIL
Shashikala Bhaurao Gaware
Adv. NIL
Suhas Damu Gaware
Adv. NIL
Mahavir Champalal Chajed
Adv. NIL
Santosh Champalal Chajed
Adv. NIL
Namdev Bhau Lomte
Adv. NIL
Shashikant Laxman Salve
Adv. NIL
Hearing History
Judge: 3-JT. CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C. PATHARDI
Disposed
Judgment
Citation
Citation
Citation
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-04-2026 | Judgment | |
| 08-04-2026 | Citation | |
| 07-04-2026 | Citation | |
| 04-04-2026 | Citation |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court partially allowed the plaintiff's petition for partition and permanent possession of ancestral agricultural land. The court determined that only two specific plots (Gat No. 83 and 167) were inherited from the common ancestor and funded by family income, thereby entitling the plaintiff and five co-defendants to an equal 1/6 share each in those properties. The court ordered the District Collector to execute the partition process and rejected claims regarding other disputed plots due to insufficient evidence of common family funding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court partially allowed the plaintiff's petition for partition and permanent possession of ancestral agricultural land. The court determined that only two specific plots (Gat No. 83 and 167) were inherited from the common ancestor and funded by family income, thereby entitling the plaintiff and five co-defendants to an equal 1/6 share each in those properties. The court ordered the District Collector to execute the partition process and rejected claims regarding other disputed plots due to insufficient evidence of common family funding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts