Gajanan Hanuman Gote vs Ukandi Ganpat Gardane Advocate - Nene Ashish Narayan — 61/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 16th March 2026.
R.C.A. - Regular Civil Appeal
CNR: MHWS010019442019
Filing Number
1006/2019
Filing Date
22-10-2019
Registration No
61/2019
Registration Date
22-10-2019
Court
District and Sessions Court, Washim
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gajanan Hanuman Gote
Adv. Gaikwad Gouttam Kisan
Respondent(s)
Ukandi Ganpat Gardane Advocate - Nene Ashish Narayan
Navnath Sopan Gote
Atmaram Shrriram Gote
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Washim
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Judgment
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 11-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Gajanan Hanuman Gote v. Ukandi Ganpat Gardane & Others (61/2019) The appellate court partially allowed Gajanan's appeal against the trial court's dismissal of his land encroachment suit. Finding critical defects in the government surveyor's measurement—including failure to measure all relevant survey numbers, absence of permanent boundary marks, and lack of proper service of notices—the court held that re-measurement was the appropriate remedy rather than dismissal. The court set aside the trial judgment and remanded the case with detailed directions for a court-appointed commissioner to conduct a fresh, comprehensive measurement showing actual holdings, boundaries, and alleged encroachment areas, after which the trial court shall decide the dispute on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Gajanan Hanuman Gote v. Ukandi Ganpat Gardane & Others (61/2019) The appellate court partially allowed Gajanan's appeal against the trial court's dismissal of his land encroachment suit. Finding critical defects in the government surveyor's measurement—including failure to measure all relevant survey numbers, absence of permanent boundary marks, and lack of proper service of notices—the court held that re-measurement was the appropriate remedy rather than dismissal. The court set aside the trial judgment and remanded the case with detailed directions for a court-appointed commissioner to conduct a fresh, comprehensive measurement showing actual holdings, boundaries, and alleged encroachment areas, after which the trial court shall decide the dispute on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts