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.

Case disposed

RCA - REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL

CNR: GJGS010000902024

Filing Number

4/2024

Filing Date

30-Jan-2024

Registration No

4/2024

Registration Date

30-Jan-2024

Court

District Court, Veraval

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

20-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 96,41.2,41.3

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HEIRS OF LT. REMAN RAHIM @ BABUBHAI CHHEL(Legal Heir)

    Adv. S A SHAIKH1.

  2. 2.JUBEDABEN REMANBHAI CHHEL

    Adv. S A SHAIKH1.

  3. 3.MAHAMMADHUSEN REMANBHAI CHHEL

    Adv. S A SHAIKH1.

  4. 4.SABIRABEN REMANBHAI CHHEL

    Adv. S A SHAIKH1.

  5. 5.ENABEN REMANBHAI CHHEL

    Adv. S A SHAIKH1.

  6. 6.FATMABEN REMANBHAI CHHEL

    Adv. S A SHAIKH1.

  7. 7.SHABANABEN REMANBHAI CHHEL

    Adv. S A SHAIKH1.

  8. 8.YASINBHAI REMANBHAI CHHEL

    Adv. S A SHAIKH1.

  9. 9.YUSUFBHAI REMANBHAI CHHEL

    Adv. S A SHAIKH1.

  10. 10.MUNAFBHAI REMANBHAI CHHEL

    Adv. S A SHAIKH1.

  11. 11.SHABBIRHUSEN REMANBHAI CHHEL

    Adv. S A SHAIKH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HEIRS OF LT. RAHIM IBRAHIM CHAVADA Advocate - A A BHADARKA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

  3. 20-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    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.

  4. 20-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  6. 20-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  7. 23-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  8. 02-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  9. 12-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  10. 14-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  11. 26-Sep-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  12. 29-Aug-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  13. 08-Aug-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  14. 18-Jul-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  15. 01-Jul-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  16. 11-Jun-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  17. 19-Apr-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  18. 07-Mar-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  19. 21-Feb-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  20. 17-Jan-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  21. 27-Dec-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  22. 22-Nov-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  23. 11-Oct-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  24. 06-Sep-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  25. 12-Jul-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  26. 14-Jun-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  27. 03-May-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  28. 19-Apr-2024

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  29. 15-Mar-2024

    For R&P

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  30. 01-Mar-2024

    Reply

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  31. 23-Feb-2024

    Reply

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  32. 30-Jan-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  33. 30-Jan-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 4/2024

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case