Dattatraya Sambhaji Gavane vs Sau.Vachala Netaji Gavane Advocate - Karanjkar Pravin Parshuram — 1200115/2012
Case under Code of Civil Procedure. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO120001532012
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
1200204/2012
Filing Date
08-02-2012
Registration No
1200115/2012
Registration Date
08-02-2012
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Barshi
Judge
4-Jt.C.J.S.D Barshi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dattatraya Sambhaji Gavane
Adv. Handibag Balabhim N
Bai Sambhaji Ghavane
Adv. Handibag Balabhim N
Respondent(s)
Sau.Vachala Netaji Gavane Advocate - Karanjkar Pravin Parshuram
Tushar Netaji Ghavane
Adv. Karanjkar Pravin Parshuram
Suryakant Saintram Vhankalas
Adv. Bochare Pradeep Abasaheb
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Jt.C.J.S.D Barshi
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 03-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 05-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 10-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 115/2012 (Dattatraya Gavhane v. Vatsala Gavhane) The court partly allowed the plaintiffs' application to recast issues in this partition suit involving disputed property sale deeds. The court reframed Issue No. 3 to require plaintiffs to prove sale deeds by defendants 1-3 are illegal and void, and recast Issue No. 5 to place the burden on defendants to prove legal necessity for the sale, per Hindu Law. However, the court rejected the plaintiffs' request to frame a negative issue regarding paternity, as plaintiffs must prove their own legal entitlement to the property share. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 115/2012 (Dattatraya Gavhane v. Vatsala Gavhane) The court partly allowed the plaintiffs' application to recast issues in this partition suit involving disputed property sale deeds. The court reframed Issue No. 3 to require plaintiffs to prove sale deeds by defendants 1-3 are illegal and void, and recast Issue No. 5 to place the burden on defendants to prove legal necessity for the sale, per Hindu Law. However, the court rejected the plaintiffs' request to frame a negative issue regarding paternity, as plaintiffs must prove their own legal entitlement to the property share. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts