THAKOR MANGUBEN D/O DEHRAJI MAHADEVJI vs SHAH KIRITKUMAR SOMALAL Advocate - R K MANSURI — 23/2015
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 034,038,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 04th May 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBK160009282015
Next Hearing
04th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
23/2015
Filing Date
16-10-2015
Registration No
23/2015
Registration Date
16-10-2015
Court
TALUKA COURT, SIHORI
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THAKOR MANGUBEN D/O DEHRAJI MAHADEVJI
Adv. A S CHAVDA
THAKOR SOMIBEN D/O DEHRAJI
THAKOR KANTABEN D/O DEHRAJI
Adv. A S CHAVDA
THAKOR LAXMIBEN REVAJI
Adv. A S CHAVDA
THAKOR KUVARJI RAVAJI
Adv. A S CHAVDA
THAKOR POPATJI RAVAJI
Adv. A S CHAVDA
THAKOR BABUJI RAVAJI
Adv. A S CHAVDA
THAKOR SANTABEN D/O RAVAJI
Adv. A S CHAVDA
THAKOR RANIBEN D/O RAVAJI
Adv. A S CHAVDA
THAKOR NANDABEN RAVAJI
Adv. A S CHAVDA
THAKOR HANSABEN D/O RAVAJI
Adv. A S CHAVDA
Respondent(s)
SHAH KIRITKUMAR SOMALAL Advocate - R K MANSURI
SHAH NIRAV KIRITKUMAR
SHAH SUNILKUMAR SOMALAL
BRAHMAN AMARATBHAI AMBARAMBHAI
VARCHAND MAHEVABHAI NARANBHAI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 09-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 16-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 12-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 22-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' interim injunction application seeking to restrain defendants from transferring ancestral agricultural land. Although the court found the plaintiffs had a partly valid prima facie case regarding their alleged ownership rights, it denied the injunction because: (1) plaintiffs failed to prove actual possession of the land; (2) they inexplicably delayed filing suit for over 2.5 years after discovering the disputed 1989 sale deed in February 2013; and (3) the balance of convenience favored defendants who were in actual possession. The doctrine of lis pendens would protect any future claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiffs' interim injunction application seeking to restrain defendants from transferring ancestral agricultural land. Although the court found the plaintiffs had a partly valid prima facie case regarding their alleged ownership rights, it denied the injunction because: (1) plaintiffs failed to prove actual possession of the land; (2) they inexplicably delayed filing suit for over 2.5 years after discovering the disputed 1989 sale deed in February 2013; and (3) the balance of convenience favored defendants who were in actual possession. The doctrine of lis pendens would protect any future claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts