Padmin Aware vs Shivaji Pangare etc.3 Advocate - Ubale Pandit D — 1300209/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section --. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 31st March 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHSO130004612015
Filing Number
1300265/2015
Filing Date
09-03-2015
Registration No
1300209/2015
Registration Date
10-03-2015
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Barshi
Judge
1-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Barshi.
Decision Date
31st March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Padmin Aware
Adv. Karanjkar Parashuram R
Respondent(s)
Shivaji Pangare etc.3 Advocate - Ubale Pandit D
Vishnu Pangare
Kisan Pangare
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. Barshi.
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 27-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 25-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Padmin Aware vs. Shivaji Pangare (RCS 209/2015) The court partly decreed the plaintiff's suit for partition and declaration. The plaintiff was established as the legitimate daughter of defendant No. 1, entitling her to a 2/4th share in ancestral agricultural lands (Gat Nos. 1037 and 1319), while defendants No. 1 and 2 each receive 1/4th shares. The previous compromise decree (RCS 460/2001) was declared void as the plaintiff was not a party and her paternity/coparcenary rights were never established in that proceeding; the suit was filed within the limitation period under Article 59. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Padmin Aware vs. Shivaji Pangare (RCS 209/2015) The court partly decreed the plaintiff's suit for partition and declaration. The plaintiff was established as the legitimate daughter of defendant No. 1, entitling her to a 2/4th share in ancestral agricultural lands (Gat Nos. 1037 and 1319), while defendants No. 1 and 2 each receive 1/4th shares. The previous compromise decree (RCS 460/2001) was declared void as the plaintiff was not a party and her paternity/coparcenary rights were never established in that proceeding; the suit was filed within the limitation period under Article 59. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts