RAJENDRASINH RAMJIBHAI GOHIL vs KASHIBEN DEVJIBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A F CHAUHAN — 69/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 31,34,38. Status: Hearing On Injunction Application. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBH090010992025
Filing Number
69/2025
Filing Date
03-Sep-2025
Registration No
69/2025
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
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAJENDRASINH RAMJIBHAI GOHIL
Adv. C N JADAV
-
2.RANJITSINH RAMJIBHAI JIRAWALA
Adv. C N JADAV
-
3.LALITABEN DHIRAJBHAI PARMAR
Adv. C N JADAV
-
4.BAKULBHAI DHIRAJBHAI AGRAWAL
Adv. C N JADAV
-
5.FALGUNI DHIRAJBHAI AGRAWAL
Adv. C N JADAV
-
6.HARISHBHAI UMEDBHAI HANSOTI
Adv. C N JADAV
-
7.DHARMISTHABEN MANJIBHAI PARMAR
Adv. C N JADAV
-
8.CHETANKUMAR MANJIBHAI PARMAR
Adv. C N JADAV
Respondent(s)
-
1.KASHIBEN DEVJIBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A F CHAUHAN
-
2.JAYANTIBHAI BACHUBHAI VADDORIYA
Adv. G M SHAH
Case History
-
20-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
07-May-2026
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
18-Apr-2026
Written Statement/Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
17-Apr-2026
Written Statement/Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Apr-2026
Written Statement/Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
30-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
-
30-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
-
30-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Case Summary: 69/2025 Outcome: Respondent 1's pleas in amendments 15 and 16 are dismissed; no costs awarded. Key Issue: This case involves a dispute over joint ancestral agricultural property among co-heirs. Petitioners challenged the sale deed executed by Respondent 1 (through Respondent 2) on grounds that it violated the Fragmentation of Agricultural Land Act, 1947, and that the sale deed was illegal and void as it was made without proper partition of the joint property and without consent of all co-owners. The court found the sale deed was executed illegally and the transfer violated land consolidation laws. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Mar-2026
Written Statement/Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
25-Mar-2026
Written Statement/Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Mar-2026
Written Statement/Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
20-Feb-2026
Written Statement/Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
16-Jan-2026
Written Statement/Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
11-Dec-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
14-Nov-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Oct-2025
Written Statement/Reply
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
25-Sep-2025
Summons - Notice
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
03-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-Sep-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 69/2025
Case Summary: 69/2025 Outcome: Respondent 1's pleas in amendments 15 and 16 are dismissed; no costs awarded. Key Issue: This case involves a dispute over joint ancestral agricultural property among co-heirs. Petitioners challenged the sale deed executed by Respondent 1 (through Respondent 2) on grounds that it violated the Fragmentation of Agricultural Land Act, 1947, and that the sale deed was illegal and void as it was made without proper partition of the joint property and without consent of all co-owners. The court found the sale deed was executed illegally and the transfer violated land consolidation laws. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts