Shri. Satyanarayan Ramayyaji Maddiwar vs Shri. Dilip Madhukar Padalwar Advocate - S.V.Jainwar — 7/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 38. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING on 27th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHGA070004702016
Filing Number
22/2016
Filing Date
06-06-2016
Registration No
7/2016
Registration Date
06-06-2016
Court
Civil Court Junior Divion ,Aheri
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Aheri.
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shri. Satyanarayan Ramayyaji Maddiwar
Adv. U.S.Galbale
Respondent(s)
Shri. Dilip Madhukar Padalwar Advocate - S.V.Jainwar
Shri. Pankaj Kisan Padalwar
Adv. S.V.Jainwar
Shri. Parag Kisan Padalwar
Adv. S.V.Jainwar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Aheri.
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Judgment
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 11-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 02-03-2026 | Judgment |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: RCS 7/2016 Court Decision: The suit was dismissed with costs. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the disputed property and failed to prove that defendants made any encroachment. Key Reasoning: The court held that revenue documents alone (7/12 extracts, tax receipts, etc.) do not constitute proof of title, citing Supreme Court precedent that such records are not documents of ownership. Additionally, the surveyor's measurement report and witness testimonies did not establish that defendants encroached on the plaintiff's land—instead, cross-examination revealed the defendants constructed on their own plinth with no proven encroachment into survey no. 591. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCS 7/2016 Court Decision: The suit was dismissed with costs. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the disputed property and failed to prove that defendants made any encroachment. Key Reasoning: The court held that revenue documents alone (7/12 extracts, tax receipts, etc.) do not constitute proof of title, citing Supreme Court precedent that such records are not documents of ownership. Additionally, the surveyor's measurement report and witness testimonies did not establish that defendants encroached on the plaintiff's land—instead, cross-examination revealed the defendants constructed on their own plinth with no proven encroachment into survey no. 591. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts