ILABEN WD/O JAGDISHBHAI @ JAGABHAI RATNABHAI AAHIR AND D/O RANCHHODBHAI BUD vs ICHCHHIBEN WD/O KANABHAI DAHYABHAI Advocate - R.R.PATEL — 42/2019
Case under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 006. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
SPCS - SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBH050020282019
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
Filing Number
42/2019
Filing Date
02-09-2014
Registration No
42/2019
Registration Date
02-09-2014
Court
TALUKA COURT, VAGRA
Judge
2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ILABEN WD/O JAGDISHBHAI @ JAGABHAI RATNABHAI AAHIR AND D/O RANCHHODBHAI BUD
Adv. N H DESAI
MINOR SHIVANI D/O JAGABHAI RATNABHAI AAHIR
Adv. N H DESAI
Respondent(s)
ICHCHHIBEN WD/O KANABHAI DAHYABHAI Advocate - R.R.PATEL
NAGINBHAI KANABHAI AAHIR
RAMIBEN D/O KANABHAI DAHYABHAI
JENTIBHAI KANABHAI AAHIR
RAVJIBHAI KANABHAI AAHIR
HARESHBHAI KANABHAI AAHIR
BHANUBEN D/O JAGDISHBHAI @ JAGABHAI RATNABHAI AAHIR AND W/O NATUBHAI DHANAB
MAHESHBHAI DHIRUBHAI UKANI
Adv. P P DEVMURARI
PRATIK DHIRUBHAI UKANI
Adv. P P DEVMURARI
Hearing History
Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-06-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 05-05-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 15-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 16-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 11-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 42/2019 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiffs' injunction application on September 18, 2024. Key Issue: Plaintiffs (widow and daughter of deceased Jagdishbhai) sought injunction orders to prevent defendants from transferring agricultural properties in Moje-Kaladara, Bharuch district, claiming they were self-acquired properties of the deceased and the plaintiffs held undivided inheritance rights. Court's Finding: The court found that plaintiffs failed to establish the three essential elements for granting injunction: (1) prima facie case, (2) balance of convenience in their favor, and (3) likelihood of irreparable loss. The court noted that the revenue records showed the property was purchased by Kanabhai Dahyabhai and Ichhaben Naranbhai (not the plaintiffs' deceased husband), and the plaintiffs produced no documentary evidence proving their husband contributed to the purchase or had ownership rights. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 42/2019 Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiffs' injunction application on September 18, 2024. Key Issue: Plaintiffs (widow and daughter of deceased Jagdishbhai) sought injunction orders to prevent defendants from transferring agricultural properties in Moje-Kaladara, Bharuch district, claiming they were self-acquired properties of the deceased and the plaintiffs held undivided inheritance rights. Court's Finding: The court found that plaintiffs failed to establish the three essential elements for granting injunction: (1) prima facie case, (2) balance of convenience in their favor, and (3) likelihood of irreparable loss. The court noted that the revenue records showed the property was purchased by Kanabhai Dahyabhai and Ichhaben Naranbhai (not the plaintiffs' deceased husband), and the plaintiffs produced no documentary evidence proving their husband contributed to the purchase or had ownership rights. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts