RAJENDRASINH RAMJIBHAI GOHIL vs KASHIBEN DEVJIBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A F CHAUHAN — 70/2025
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: GJBH090011002025
Filing Number
70/2025
Filing Date
03-Sep-2025
Registration No
70/2025
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: 70/2025 Outcome: The Court partially allowed the petitioners' petition. Respondent 1's (Kashiben Devjibhai Parmar's) interim applications in Sections 15 and 16 were approved, while no costs were awarded. Key Issue: The case involved a dispute over jointly-held agricultural land (village Tavaliya, Jhalod taluka, North Gujarat) between the petitioners and Respondent 1. The primary contention was whether Respondent 1 unilaterally could sell her share of the property to Respondent 2 without consent of co-owners, and whether the registered sale deed was legally valid under the Fragmented Landholdings Act, 1947. Court's Finding: The Court found that Respondent 1 acted improperly by executing a sale deed to Respondent 2 for her share without proper legal authorization and without the agreement of the joint owners. The sale deed was found to be legally defective and against statutory provisions governing agricultural land transfers. 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. 70/2025
Case Summary: 70/2025 Outcome: The Court partially allowed the petitioners' petition. Respondent 1's (Kashiben Devjibhai Parmar's) interim applications in Sections 15 and 16 were approved, while no costs were awarded. Key Issue: The case involved a dispute over jointly-held agricultural land (village Tavaliya, Jhalod taluka, North Gujarat) between the petitioners and Respondent 1. The primary contention was whether Respondent 1 unilaterally could sell her share of the property to Respondent 2 without consent of co-owners, and whether the registered sale deed was legally valid under the Fragmented Landholdings Act, 1947. Court's Finding: The Court found that Respondent 1 acted improperly by executing a sale deed to Respondent 2 for her share without proper legal authorization and without the agreement of the joint owners. The sale deed was found to be legally defective and against statutory provisions governing agricultural land transfers. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts