RAJENDRASINH RAMJIBHAI GOHIL vs KASHIBEN DEVJIBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A F CHAUHAN — 68/2025

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 31,34,38. Status: Hearing On Injunction Application. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.

Hearing On Injunction Application Next hearing 20-Jun-2026 this date has passed

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJBH090010972025

Filing Number

68/2025

Filing Date

03-Sep-2025

Registration No

68/2025

Registration Date

03-Sep-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, VALIA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 31,34,38

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJENDRASINH RAMJIBHAI GOHIL

    Adv. C N JADAV

  2. 2.RANJITSINH RAMJIBHAI JIRAWALA

    Adv. C N JADAV

  3. 3.LALITABEN DHIRAJBHAI PARMAR

    Adv. C N JADAV

  4. 4.BAKULBHAI DHIRAJBHAI AGRAWAL

    Adv. C N JADAV

  5. 5.FALGUNI DHIRAJBHAI AGRAWAL

    Adv. C N JADAV

  6. 6.HARISHBHAI UMEDBHAI HANSOTI

    Adv. C N JADAV

  7. 7.DHARMISTHABEN MANJIBHAI PARMAR

    Adv. C N JADAV

  8. 8.CHETANKUMAR MANJIBHAI PARMAR

    Adv. C N JADAV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KASHIBEN DEVJIBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A F CHAUHAN

  2. 2.JAYANTIBHAI BACHUBHAI VADDORIYA

    Adv. G M SHAH

Case History

  1. 20-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 17-Apr-2026

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 03-Apr-2026

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 30-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  7. 30-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  8. 30-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 68/2025 Parties: - Petitioners: Rajendrasinh Ramjibhai Gohil, Ranjitsinh Ramjibhai Jirawala, Lalitaben Dhirajbhai Parmar - Respondents: Kashiben Devjibhai Parmar (Advocate A.F. Chauhan and Jayantibhai Bachubhai Vaddoriya) Outcome: The court granted the respondent's applications (Appeals 15 and 16), dismissing the petitioners' pleas. The court found that the petitioners failed to establish valid grounds for their claims regarding disputed agricultural land division and property transfer disputes among joint family members. The court ruled that Respondent No. 1 validly transferred their share of the property to Respondent No. 2 through a registered deed, and the subdivision restrictions under applicable law do not prevent such transfers. No costs awarded. Order Date: March 30, 2026 This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  9. 30-Mar-2026

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 25-Mar-2026

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 12-Mar-2026

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 20-Feb-2026

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 16-Jan-2026

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 11-Dec-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 14-Nov-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 10-Oct-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 25-Sep-2025

    Summons - Notice

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 03-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  19. 03-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 68/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 68/2025 Parties: - Petitioners: Rajendrasinh Ramjibhai Gohil, Ranjitsinh Ramjibhai Jirawala, Lalitaben Dhirajbhai Parmar - Respondents: Kashiben Devjibhai Parmar (Advocate A.F. Chauhan and Jayantibhai Bachubhai Vaddoriya) Outcome: The court granted the respondent's applications (Appeals 15 and 16), dismissing the petitioners' pleas. The court found that the petitioners failed to establish valid grounds for their claims regarding disputed agricultural land division and property transfer disputes among joint family members. The court ruled that Respondent No. 1 validly transferred their share of the property to Respondent No. 2 through a registered deed, and the subdivision restrictions under applicable law do not prevent such transfers. No costs awarded. Order Date: March 30, 2026 This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case