JUBEDABEN MAKBUL KAZI vs RUKAIYABEN ISMAIL UMARSHA Advocate - H I SHAH — 45/2021

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Status: DEFENDANT EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJBH050019102021

DEFENDANT EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

15th June 2026

Filing Number

45/2021

Filing Date

15-11-2021

Registration No

45/2021

Registration Date

15-11-2021

Court

TALUKA COURT, VAGRA

Judge

1-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 151
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Section 31

Petitioner(s)

JUBEDABEN MAKBUL KAZI

Adv. F.A.MOTIWALA

AIYUB MAKBUL DIWAN

FARIDABEN ABDULAZIZ DIWAN

YUSUF MAKBUL DIWAN

MARIYAMBANU AKBARBHAI DIWAN

SAEDABEN MAKBULBHAI KAZI

SHABBIR MAKBUL KAZI

Respondent(s)

RUKAIYABEN ISMAIL UMARSHA Advocate - H I SHAH

NIZAMUDDIN ISMAIL UMARSHA

Adv. H I SHAH

YUNUS ISMAIL UMARSHA

Adv. H I SHAH

MAIYUDDIN ISMAIL UMARSHA

Adv. H I SHAH

SAHERABEN ISMAIL UMARSHA

Adv. H I SHAH

AHMAD HUSAINSHA

Adv. H I SHAH

IBRAHIMSHA HAJRATSHA DIWAN

Adv. H I SHAH

RABIYABIBI HAJRATSHA DIWAN

Adv. H I SHAH

HASINABIBI HAJRATSHA DIWAN

Adv. H I SHAH

RAJENDRA NARANBHAI PATEL

Adv. H I SHAH

Hearing History

Judge: 1-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

18-05-2026

DEFENDANT EVIDENCE

20-04-2026

DEFENDANT EVIDENCE

16-03-2026

DEFENDANT EVIDENCE

16-02-2026

DEFENDANT EVIDENCE

19-01-2026

DEFENDANT EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

24-04-2023
ORDER

Summary of Case 45/2021 The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for interim injunction seeking to restrain defendants from transferring agricultural property in Pakhajan village, Bharuch district. The plaintiffs claimed their ancestor's name was omitted from revenue records during a 1999 mutation entry, and subsequently challenged a 2020 registered sale deed to defendant no. 10. The court found that defendant no. 10, as a bona fide purchaser through a registered instrument executed before the suit was filed, had acquired valid title. The court also held that the plaintiffs' 17-year delay in asserting rights after their ancestor's death, combined with the registered nature of the sale deed, precluded granting the equitable relief of injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 45/2021 The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for interim injunction seeking to restrain defendants from transferring agricultural property in Pakhajan village, Bharuch district. The plaintiffs claimed their ancestor's name was omitted from revenue records during a 1999 mutation entry, and subsequently challenged a 2020 registered sale deed to defendant no. 10. The court found that defendant no. 10, as a bona fide purchaser through a registered instrument executed before the suit was filed, had acquired valid title. The court also held that the plaintiffs' 17-year delay in asserting rights after their ancestor's death, combined with the registered nature of the sale deed, precluded granting the equitable relief of injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, VAGRA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case