Tatoba Kashiram Pathare vs Narayan Dhondu Pathare etc 4 Advocate - SHEWAL NITIN MORESHWAR — 1700034/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 39. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHRG160001982015
Filing Number
1700044/2015
Filing Date
25-09-2015
Registration No
1700034/2015
Registration Date
25-09-2015
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Pali
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D And J.M.F.C Pali-Sudhgad
Decision Date
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Tatoba Kashiram Pathare
Adv. KADAM KRANTI VISHNU
Respondent(s)
Narayan Dhondu Pathare etc 4 Advocate - SHEWAL NITIN MORESHWAR
Smt. Vimal Sitaram Patil
Smt. Bhimabai Mahadu Angre
Smt. Lata Kashinath Malusare
Smt. Lakshmibai Dhondu Pathare
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D And J.M.F.C Pali-Sudhgad
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 09-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 04-04-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Tatoba Kashiram Pathare v. Narayan Dhondu Pathare (Case 1700034/2015) Court Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's suit in its entirety. The petitioner (Tatoba Kashiram Pathare, deceased, represented by his heirs) failed to establish ownership rights over the disputed agricultural land located in Gondav, Sudhagad taluka, Raygad district, and therefore could not obtain a declaration of ownership or partition of the property. Key Reasoning: Although the petitioner demonstrated possession and cultivation of certain portions of the land (plots 582 and 458), the court found this was insufficient to establish exclusive ownership. The court noted that the land records (satabaras) showed the respondents' names, and the petitioner could not produce documentary evidence proving the land was jointly owned family property or that it had been transferred through family succession. The burden of proof fell on the petitioner to establish ownership claims, which was not adequately discharged despite witness testimony. Relief Denied: All six issues were decided against the petitioner, and the suit was rejected with each party bearing its own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Tatoba Kashiram Pathare v. Narayan Dhondu Pathare (Case 1700034/2015) Court Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's suit in its entirety. The petitioner (Tatoba Kashiram Pathare, deceased, represented by his heirs) failed to establish ownership rights over the disputed agricultural land located in Gondav, Sudhagad taluka, Raygad district, and therefore could not obtain a declaration of ownership or partition of the property. Key Reasoning: Although the petitioner demonstrated possession and cultivation of certain portions of the land (plots 582 and 458), the court found this was insufficient to establish exclusive ownership. The court noted that the land records (satabaras) showed the respondents' names, and the petitioner could not produce documentary evidence proving the land was jointly owned family property or that it had been transferred through family succession. The burden of proof fell on the petitioner to establish ownership claims, which was not adequately discharged despite witness testimony. Relief Denied: All six issues were decided against the petitioner, and the suit was rejected with each party bearing its own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts