Jijabai Bhauji Madavi vs Motiram Pochu Madavi Advocate - D.V.Donadkar, D.V.Donadkar, D.V.DonadkarD.V.Donadkar, — 14/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 12th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHGA090002722021
Filing Number
34/2021
Filing Date
03-04-2021
Registration No
14/2021
Registration Date
03-04-2021
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Chamorshi
Judge
10-Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jijabai Bhauji Madavi
Adv. P.B.Borawar
Yashvant Tulshiram Naitam
Sindubai Sundarshaha Soyam
Nandabai Banduji Urete
Respondent(s)
Motiram Pochu Madavi Advocate - D.V.Donadkar, D.V.Donadkar, D.V.DonadkarD.V.Donadkar,
Dharmaji Pochu Madavi
Divakar Pochu Madavi
Hearing History
Judge: 10-Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Citation
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 26-02-2026 | Judgment |
| 09-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 22-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 15-01-2026 | Citation |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Jijabai Bhauji Madavi v. Motiram Pochu Madavi Court Decision: The suit for partition and separate possession was partly decreed. The court declared that plaintiffs are entitled to 1/12th share each, and defendants (nos. 2 and 3) are entitled to 1/3rd share each in ancestral agricultural properties bearing Survey nos. 107, 108, 109, 305, and 99 only. The court rejected claims regarding other properties, finding defendants failed to prove a valid relinquishment deed and that certain properties had already been partitioned during Sitabai's lifetime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Jijabai Bhauji Madavi v. Motiram Pochu Madavi Court Decision: The suit for partition and separate possession was partly decreed. The court declared that plaintiffs are entitled to 1/12th share each, and defendants (nos. 2 and 3) are entitled to 1/3rd share each in ancestral agricultural properties bearing Survey nos. 107, 108, 109, 305, and 99 only. The court rejected claims regarding other properties, finding defendants failed to prove a valid relinquishment deed and that certain properties had already been partitioned during Sitabai's lifetime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts