Ajay Shankar Chavhan-1 vs Balkrushna Sadashiv Shinde-4 Advocate - Metha Mohan Velji — 173/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 31st March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHRG110013832017
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
231/2017
Filing Date
05-12-2017
Registration No
173/2017
Registration Date
05-12-2017
Court
Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C., Mangaon
Judge
2-Jt. C. J. J. D. and J. M. F. C. Mangaon
Decision Date
31st March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ajay Shankar Chavhan-1
Adv. Wakade Sunil Keshav
Shankar Vithoba Chavhan
Adv. Wakade Sunil Keshav
Respondent(s)
Balkrushna Sadashiv Shinde-4 Advocate - Metha Mohan Velji
Dwarkanath Sadashiv Shinde
Prakash Sadashiv Shinde
Vijay Sadashiv Shinde
Ravindra Sadashiv Shinde
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. C. J. J. D. and J. M. F. C. Mangaon
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 30-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 23-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 09-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction over agricultural land (Gat No. 116/2) based on adverse possession. The court found that while a suit based on adverse possession is maintainable under Indian law, the plaintiffs failed to prove the essential ingredients of adverse possession—namely continuous, exclusive, hostile possession for 12 years with ouster of the true owners. The defendants had established their title through a binding partition decree from 1982, which the plaintiffs admitted but did not challenge. The court held that the defendants' decree prevails over the plaintiffs' revenue documents and panchnama records, and that the plaintiffs provided insufficient evidence of exclusive or hostile possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction over agricultural land (Gat No. 116/2) based on adverse possession. The court found that while a suit based on adverse possession is maintainable under Indian law, the plaintiffs failed to prove the essential ingredients of adverse possession—namely continuous, exclusive, hostile possession for 12 years with ouster of the true owners. The defendants had established their title through a binding partition decree from 1982, which the plaintiffs admitted but did not challenge. The court held that the defendants' decree prevails over the plaintiffs' revenue documents and panchnama records, and that the plaintiffs provided insufficient evidence of exclusive or hostile possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts