HEIRS OF LT. REMAN RAHIM @ BABUBHAI CHHEL(Legal Heir) vs HEIRS OF LT. RAHIM IBRAHIM CHAVADA Advocate - A A BHADARKA — 4/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96,41.2,41.3. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 20th March 2026.
RCA - REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL
CNR: GJGS010000902024
Filing Number
4/2024
Filing Date
30-01-2024
Registration No
4/2024
Registration Date
30-01-2024
Court
District Court, Veraval
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
20th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
HEIRS OF LT. REMAN RAHIM @ BABUBHAI CHHEL(Legal Heir)
Adv. S A SHAIKH1.
JUBEDABEN REMANBHAI CHHEL
Adv. S A SHAIKH1.
MAHAMMADHUSEN REMANBHAI CHHEL
Adv. S A SHAIKH1.
SABIRABEN REMANBHAI CHHEL
Adv. S A SHAIKH1.
ENABEN REMANBHAI CHHEL
Adv. S A SHAIKH1.
FATMABEN REMANBHAI CHHEL
Adv. S A SHAIKH1.
SHABANABEN REMANBHAI CHHEL
Adv. S A SHAIKH1.
YASINBHAI REMANBHAI CHHEL
Adv. S A SHAIKH1.
YUSUFBHAI REMANBHAI CHHEL
Adv. S A SHAIKH1.
MUNAFBHAI REMANBHAI CHHEL
Adv. S A SHAIKH1.
SHABBIRHUSEN REMANBHAI CHHEL
Adv. S A SHAIKH
Respondent(s)
HEIRS OF LT. RAHIM IBRAHIM CHAVADA Advocate - A A BHADARKA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 20-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 23-01-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 02-01-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Regular Civil Appeal No. 4/2024 Court: Principal District Judge, Gir-Somnath, Veraval Decided: March 20, 2026 Key Finding: The appellate court allowed the appeal and reversed the trial court's dismissal, granting the plaintiffs' suit for eviction and possession. The court held the trial court committed serious legal error by dismissing the suit despite finding the plaintiffs owned the property and defendants occupied it without rent. Core Issue: Plaintiffs sought eviction from property (Survey Nos. B/99 and B/102) purchased by their father in 1947. The trial court found plaintiffs were owners and property was given to defendants permissively (rent-free), yet dismissed the suit claiming plaintiffs should have filed for title declaration instead. The appellate court found this reasoning legally flawed—once ownership and permissive possession were established, eviction should follow logically. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Regular Civil Appeal No. 4/2024 Court: Principal District Judge, Gir-Somnath, Veraval Decided: March 20, 2026 Key Finding: The appellate court allowed the appeal and reversed the trial court's dismissal, granting the plaintiffs' suit for eviction and possession. The court held the trial court committed serious legal error by dismissing the suit despite finding the plaintiffs owned the property and defendants occupied it without rent. Core Issue: Plaintiffs sought eviction from property (Survey Nos. B/99 and B/102) purchased by their father in 1947. The trial court found plaintiffs were owners and property was given to defendants permissively (rent-free), yet dismissed the suit claiming plaintiffs should have filed for title declaration instead. The appellate court found this reasoning legally flawed—once ownership and permissive possession were established, eviction should follow logically. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts