RAJENDRASINH RAMJIBHAI GOHIL vs KASHIBEN DEVJIBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A F CHAUHAN — 72/2025
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: GJBH090011022025
Filing Number
72/2025
Filing Date
03-Sep-2025
Registration No
72/2025
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: 72/2025 Outcome: The court dismissed the petitioners' applications (Respondent 1's Sections 15 and 16 applications) with no order as to costs. Key Issue: This was a property dispute involving jointly-held agricultural land. Respondent 1 (Kashiben Devjibhai Parmar) sold her share of the co-owned property to Respondent 2 (Jayantibhai Bachubhai Vaddoriya) through a registered sale deed dated 10/01/2023. The petitioners challenged whether this sale violated their rights as co-owners and whether proper partition procedures under the Partition of Agricultural Lands Act, 1947 were followed. The court found the sale valid and the respondent's contentions regarding co-ownership rights were upheld. 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. 72/2025
Case Summary: 72/2025 Outcome: The court dismissed the petitioners' applications (Respondent 1's Sections 15 and 16 applications) with no order as to costs. Key Issue: This was a property dispute involving jointly-held agricultural land. Respondent 1 (Kashiben Devjibhai Parmar) sold her share of the co-owned property to Respondent 2 (Jayantibhai Bachubhai Vaddoriya) through a registered sale deed dated 10/01/2023. The petitioners challenged whether this sale violated their rights as co-owners and whether proper partition procedures under the Partition of Agricultural Lands Act, 1947 were followed. The court found the sale valid and the respondent's contentions regarding co-ownership rights were upheld. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts