Subham Youraj Dhage and other 2 vs Baburao Jagnnath Dhage and other 2 Advocate - Jagtap Madhav R — 148/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 16th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA110008882018
Filing Number
1999/2016
Filing Date
23-03-2016
Registration No
148/2016
Registration Date
23-03-2016
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Nilanga
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Subham Youraj Dhage and other 2
Adv. Jadhav Udhav S
Ragani Youraj Dhage
Adv. Jadhav Udhav S
Daivatabai Baburao Dhage
Adv. Jadhav Udhav S
Respondent(s)
Baburao Jagnnath Dhage and other 2 Advocate - Jagtap Madhav R
Tejabai Baburao Dhage
Adv. Jagtap Madhav R
Deelip Sugriv Suryawanshi
Adv. Jagtap Madhav R
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Nilanga
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 26-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 17-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for partition of land. Although the court found that plaintiff No.3 was the legally wedded wife of defendant No.1 and mother of deceased Youraj, it held that the disputed property was defendant No.1's self-acquired property, not joint family property, and therefore the minor plaintiffs (Youraj's children) had no claim to it. The court also found defendant No.3 to be a bona fide purchaser of the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for partition of land. Although the court found that plaintiff No.3 was the legally wedded wife of defendant No.1 and mother of deceased Youraj, it held that the disputed property was defendant No.1's self-acquired property, not joint family property, and therefore the minor plaintiffs (Youraj's children) had no claim to it. The court also found defendant No.3 to be a bona fide purchaser of the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts