Digamber Jadhav etc vs Sonba Jadhav etc 4 Advocate - Phade Dilip A. — 1000811/1999
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 6. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO100000761999
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
Filing Number
1000811/1999
Filing Date
01-11-1999
Registration No
1000811/1999
Registration Date
01-11-1999
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Malshiras
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division Malshiras
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Digamber Jadhav etc
Adv. Kadam Ganesh P.
Balaso Digmbar Jadhav
Adv. Bhongle H.S,
Gunabai Digmbar Jadhav
Adv. Bhongale H.S.
Laxmibai Balaso Jadhav
Adv. Bhongale H.S.
Respondent(s)
Sonba Jadhav etc 4 Advocate - Phade Dilip A.
Lalaso Sonba Jadhav
Adv. Phade Dilip A.
Raovso Sonba Jadhav
Adv. Phade Dilip A.
Ajinath Sonba Jadhav
Adv. Phade Dilip A.
8. Kasturbai Ravsaheb Deshmukh, Dead
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Malshiras
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 17-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 20-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 02-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Digamber Jadhav v. Sonba Jadhav (1000811/1999) This property dispute involved competing claims to ancestral land between co-heirs. The court found that while a partition (division of property) between petitioner and respondent Nos. 1-4 allegedly occurred in 1950, proper legal procedures under the Code of Civil Procedure were not followed. The court directed respondents to produce their first appeal documents and ordered the matter remitted for proper adjudication according to law, requiring respondents to file their counter-statement first before proceeding further. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Digamber Jadhav v. Sonba Jadhav (1000811/1999) This property dispute involved competing claims to ancestral land between co-heirs. The court found that while a partition (division of property) between petitioner and respondent Nos. 1-4 allegedly occurred in 1950, proper legal procedures under the Code of Civil Procedure were not followed. The court directed respondents to produce their first appeal documents and ordered the matter remitted for proper adjudication according to law, requiring respondents to file their counter-statement first before proceeding further. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts