Ashok Gangaram Chilme Time Bound vs Harishchndra Gangaram Chilme Advocate - Pande Prasad S — 348/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7R1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 27th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Reg.Civil Suit
CNR: MHLA170005702023
Filing Number
1313/2023
Filing Date
21-03-2018
Registration No
348/2023
Registration Date
21-03-2018
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Ausa
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division Ausa
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ashok Gangaram Chilme Time Bound
Adv. Nimburge Amol M
Respondent(s)
Harishchndra Gangaram Chilme Advocate - Pande Prasad S
Angad Gangaram Chilme
Adv. Pande P.S.
Sub Divisional Officer
Project Director
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Ausa
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 18-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Ashok Gangaram Chilme v. Harischandra Gangaram Chilme Decision: The suit is dismissed. Key Reasoning: The court found that plaintiff Ashok failed to prove ownership of the eastern portion of disputed land in survey No. 34/B. Evidence showed defendant No. 1 (Harischandra) owned the eastern portion, having sold only the western portion to plaintiff via registered sale deed in 2002. The relinquishment deed of 2016, wherein plaintiff relinquished rights to defendant No. 1, was valid and properly executed. Plaintiff admitted the sale deed's contents through his own documents (gift deed), which described remaining eastern land as defendant No. 1's property. Therefore, plaintiff has no claim to compensation for the land acquired for National Highway construction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Ashok Gangaram Chilme v. Harischandra Gangaram Chilme Decision: The suit is dismissed. Key Reasoning: The court found that plaintiff Ashok failed to prove ownership of the eastern portion of disputed land in survey No. 34/B. Evidence showed defendant No. 1 (Harischandra) owned the eastern portion, having sold only the western portion to plaintiff via registered sale deed in 2002. The relinquishment deed of 2016, wherein plaintiff relinquished rights to defendant No. 1, was valid and properly executed. Plaintiff admitted the sale deed's contents through his own documents (gift deed), which described remaining eastern land as defendant No. 1's property. Therefore, plaintiff has no claim to compensation for the land acquired for National Highway construction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts