Bhagwat Dnyanba Navghare vs Sushilabai Shankar Jadhav (Koche) — 78/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Uncontested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 07th May 2026.
R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal
CNR: MHWS010016542022
Filing Number
900/2022
Filing Date
20-10-2022
Registration No
78/2022
Registration Date
20-10-2022
Court
District and Sessions Court, Washim
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhagwat Dnyanba Navghare
Adv. Gawali Ravindra Shamrao
Respondent(s)
Sushilabai Shankar Jadhav (Koche)
Datta Shankar Jadhav (Koche)
Digambar Shankar Jadhav (Koche)
Rekha Bhagwat Ambhore
Eknath Dnyanba Kavar
Kailash Dnaynba Kavar
Bhaurao Chinku Muthal
Kishor Namdeorao Wankhede
Vijay Digambar Awate
Shailesh Kondiram Pardhe
Deputy Superintendent of land record and Enquiry officer Zodga bk
State of Maharashtra Through Collector Washim
Tahsildar, Malegaon
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Ex-Parte Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 05-05-2026 | Judgment |
| 23-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 08-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 30-03-2026 | Ex-Parte Order |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 78/2022: Bhagwat Dnyanba Navghare v. Sushilabai Shankar Jadhav The Principal District Judge, Washim, partly allowed the appellant's appeal regarding disputed agricultural land affected by a faulty land consolidation scheme. The court affirmed the trial court's declaration that the appellant owns the suit property but corrected an error by also declaring that a 2015 sale deed is not binding on the appellant regarding the disputed property, as the defendant failed to contest the claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 78/2022: Bhagwat Dnyanba Navghare v. Sushilabai Shankar Jadhav The Principal District Judge, Washim, partly allowed the appellant's appeal regarding disputed agricultural land affected by a faulty land consolidation scheme. The court affirmed the trial court's declaration that the appellant owns the suit property but corrected an error by also declaring that a 2015 sale deed is not binding on the appellant regarding the disputed property, as the defendant failed to contest the claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts