Shahida Mulani vs Yunnus Dange etc 7 Advocate - Deo Suhas B. — 93/2022
Case under Hindu Succession Act Section 6. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO100010612022
Next Hearing
25th June 2026
Filing Number
1019/2022
Filing Date
22-09-2022
Registration No
93/2022
Registration Date
22-09-2022
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Malshiras
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division Malshiras
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shahida Mulani
Adv. Nimbalkar Sambhaji S.
Respondent(s)
Yunnus Dange etc 7 Advocate - Deo Suhas B.
Malan Dange
Adv. Deo Suhas B.
Bashir Dange
Tamija Mulani
Reshma Hawaldar
Hasina Kazi
Devidas Shinde
Allabaksh Dange
Adv. Barge Ranajit Shashikant
Parvej Jainuddin Dange
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Senior Division Malshiras
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 04-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 05-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 05-12-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case 93/2022 Summary: The court allowed plaintiff Shahida Mulani's application to amend the plaint in a partition and separate possession suit. Defendant No.1 had transferred 20 acres of land to Parvej Jainuddin Dange during suit pendency for Rs.19,55,000 (unpaid) to avoid the plaintiff's share. The court rejected defendants' objections that the amendment would change the suit's nature and that the sale deed was not submitted, holding that adding the purchaser as a party was necessary and proper given the suit's nature. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 93/2022 Summary: The court allowed plaintiff Shahida Mulani's application to amend the plaint in a partition and separate possession suit. Defendant No.1 had transferred 20 acres of land to Parvej Jainuddin Dange during suit pendency for Rs.19,55,000 (unpaid) to avoid the plaintiff's share. The court rejected defendants' objections that the amendment would change the suit's nature and that the sale deed was not submitted, holding that adding the purchaser as a party was necessary and proper given the suit's nature. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts