Certainly. Here are the names of similar case laws based on the principles discussed in the provided document:

1. A case emphasizing that revenue mutation entries are only for fiscal purposes and do not constitute conclusive proof of family partition or transfer of title (!) .

2. A case highlighting that the burden of proof to establish a family partition, especially an oral one, lies with the party asserting it, and such proof must be supported by credible oral or documentary evidence (!) .

3. A case affirming the necessity of examining witnesses present at the time of alleged partition, such as panchas or neighbors, and that their absence weakens the claim of a family division (!) .

4. A case establishing that the absence of a written deed or supporting witnesses makes it difficult to prove an oral family partition, requiring substantial evidence for such claims (!) .

5. A case reinforcing that mere possession or entries in revenue records do not prove a family partition unless supported by evidence of physical division or transfer of possession (!) .

6. A case stating that proof of a family partition must include clear deeds, written agreements, or credible testimony, and that courts should scrutinize such evidence carefully (!) .

7. A case indicating that reliance solely on fiscal or revenue records without supporting evidence of physical division or transfer of possession is not sufficient to establish a family partition (!) .

These case law principles reflect the importance of concrete evidence and credible witnesses in proving family partitions and the limited evidentiary value of revenue records in such disputes.