SHITABEN D/O KALABHAI BHIL vs SAHUBEN W/O VAGHABHAI BHIL Advocate - N S MAJIRANA — 60/2023
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBK080011832023
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
60/2023
Filing Date
06-10-2023
Registration No
60/2023
Registration Date
06-10-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, THARAD
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHITABEN D/O KALABHAI BHIL
Adv. H H JOSHI
DHARMIBEN D/O KALABHAI BHIL
Adv. H H JOSHI
KANKUBEN D/O KALABHAI BHIL
Adv. H H JOSHI
Respondent(s)
SAHUBEN W/O VAGHABHAI BHIL Advocate - N S MAJIRANA
SHANTABEN SHANKARBHAI BHIL
Adv. N S MAJIRANA
SHARDABEN W/O PUNMAJI BHIL
Adv. N S MAJIRANA
BHAMRAJI S/O PUNMAJI BHIL
Adv. N S MAJIRANA
SHANJAYBHAI S/O PUNMAJI BHIL
Adv. N S MAJIRANA
KHANABHAI S/O PUNMAJI BHIL
Adv. N S MAJIRANA
SURESHBHAI S/O SHANKARBHAI BHIL
Adv. N S MAJIRANA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 09-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 07-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 03-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 29-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the plaintiffs' petition for declaratory relief and mandatory injunction regarding ancestral agricultural land. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish their case due to lack of proper documentation, evidence of continuous possession, and procedural defects in their claims, while also finding that the defendants had raised valid legal objections to the plaintiffs' assertions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the plaintiffs' petition for declaratory relief and mandatory injunction regarding ancestral agricultural land. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish their case due to lack of proper documentation, evidence of continuous possession, and procedural defects in their claims, while also finding that the defendants had raised valid legal objections to the plaintiffs' assertions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts