Swati Rajendra Barangule vs Subhash Govind Pawar Advocate - Kulkarni Prasad J — 169/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 16th March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO130002182021
Filing Number
229/2021
Filing Date
16-03-2021
Registration No
169/2021
Registration Date
18-03-2021
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Barshi
Judge
3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and JMFC Barshi
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Swati Rajendra Barangule
Adv. Vaidya Ravindra U
Respondent(s)
Subhash Govind Pawar Advocate - Kulkarni Prasad J
Rukmini Subhash Pawar
Deepak Subhash Pawar
Jyoti Amol Raut
Adv. Raut Kirtikumar Panditrao
Hearing History
Judge: 3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. and JMFC Barshi
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Judgment
Judgment
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 05-03-2026 | Judgment |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court decreed a partition suit involving a Hindu undivided family property. The plaintiff challenged a prior Lok Adalat award from a 2017 suit that excluded her and another co-parcener, arguing they were necessary parties whose shares were ignored. The judge found the suit properties were joint family assets, declared the plaintiff and defendant no. 4 entitled to 1/5th shares each under Hindu Succession Act provisions, ruled the earlier award non-binding on their shares, and ordered partition by the District Collector. Gift deeds executed by the father favoring his grandson were held valid only to his share, not binding on the plaintiff's rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court decreed a partition suit involving a Hindu undivided family property. The plaintiff challenged a prior Lok Adalat award from a 2017 suit that excluded her and another co-parcener, arguing they were necessary parties whose shares were ignored. The judge found the suit properties were joint family assets, declared the plaintiff and defendant no. 4 entitled to 1/5th shares each under Hindu Succession Act provisions, ruled the earlier award non-binding on their shares, and ordered partition by the District Collector. Gift deeds executed by the father favoring his grandson were held valid only to his share, not binding on the plaintiff's rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts