Bhausaheb Dhindiram Shinde vs Barku Tukaram Shinde — 4/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 11th March 2026.
R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal
CNR: MHNS100000282016
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
8/2016
Filing Date
11-01-2016
Registration No
4/2016
Registration Date
11-01-2016
Court
District Court-1 ,Niphad
Judge
1-DIST. JUDGE-2 AND ADDL. SESS. JUDGE
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhausaheb Dhindiram Shinde
Adv. Bagade Biharilal B
Shankar Dhondiram Shinde
Saraswatibai Dhondiram Shinde
Jijabai Prabhakar Jadhav
Respondent(s)
Barku Tukaram Shinde
Tukaram Kisan Shinde
Madhav Tukaram Shinde
Namdeo Kisan Shinde
Parvatabai Kisan Shinde
Ashok Tukaram Shinde
Uttam Parvat Bhadange
Hearing History
Judge: 1-DIST. JUDGE-2 AND ADDL. SESS. JUDGE
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Judgment
Amended Plaint
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 24-02-2026 | Judgment | |
| 11-02-2026 | Judgment | |
| 21-01-2026 | Amended Plaint |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District Court of Niphad dismissed the plaintiffs' civil appeal, confirming the trial court's dismissal of their suit. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of an alleged compromise deed dated 07.03.2002 regarding partition of ancestral agricultural properties, as the document was not produced on record. Under Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, oral testimony alone cannot establish the terms of a written agreement; the document itself must be presented. Consequently, the plaintiffs could not substantiate their claims for property rights, injunction, or partition relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The District Court of Niphad dismissed the plaintiffs' civil appeal, confirming the trial court's dismissal of their suit. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of an alleged compromise deed dated 07.03.2002 regarding partition of ancestral agricultural properties, as the document was not produced on record. Under Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, oral testimony alone cannot establish the terms of a written agreement; the document itself must be presented. Consequently, the plaintiffs could not substantiate their claims for property rights, injunction, or partition relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts