KOLI SAVABHAI HARIRAMBHAI vs KOLI DADAMBEN RAMCHANDBHAI W.O NAGJIBHAI Advocate - N R SOLANKI — 84/2019
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,37,. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th March 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBK070003102019
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
84/2019
Filing Date
09-04-2019
Registration No
84/2019
Registration Date
09-04-2019
Court
TALUKA COURT, WAV
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KOLI SAVABHAI HARIRAMBHAI
Adv. P M Chauhan
KOLI VIHABHAI HARIRAMBHAI
KOLI RAJUBEN HARIRAMBHAI W.O SANKARBHAI
Respondent(s)
KOLI DADAMBEN RAMCHANDBHAI W.O NAGJIBHAI Advocate - N R SOLANKI
KOLI BABABHAI RAMCHANDBHAI
KOLI SENDHABHAI RAMCHANDBHAI
KOLI GAGUBEN RAMCHANDBHAI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 07-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 05-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 28-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Principal Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding ancestral land. The court found the plaintiffs failed to prove the disputed land (Survey No. 125, measuring 8-96-47 hectares in Gambhirpura village) was undivided ancestral property or that they held equal rights with defendants. Critical revenue records from 1970-2019 consistently omitted the plaintiff's ancestor Harirambhai as a rights-holder, contradicting the plaintiff's own documentary evidence. The court imposed ₹50,000 costs on plaintiffs for filing a false and vexatious suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Principal Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding ancestral land. The court found the plaintiffs failed to prove the disputed land (Survey No. 125, measuring 8-96-47 hectares in Gambhirpura village) was undivided ancestral property or that they held equal rights with defendants. Critical revenue records from 1970-2019 consistently omitted the plaintiff's ancestor Harirambhai as a rights-holder, contradicting the plaintiff's own documentary evidence. The court imposed ₹50,000 costs on plaintiffs for filing a false and vexatious suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts