KANCHANBEN D O BHIKHABHAI RAMSIBHJAI JOTAVA W O VARJANGBHAI MERAMANBHAI RAM vs BHIKHABHAI RAMSIBHAI JOTAVA Advocate - R.A.SIRAJI — 9/2020
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,35,36,37. Status: Plaintiff Evidence. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
SPCS - SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJGS020017192020
Filing Number
9/2020
Filing Date
22-Dec-2020
Registration No
9/2020
Registration Date
22-Dec-2020
Court
Civil Court, Veraval
Judge
8-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Last updated 21-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KANCHANBEN D O BHIKHABHAI RAMSIBHJAI JOTAVA W O VARJANGBHAI MERAMANBHAI RAM
Adv. T N JETHVA
-
2.MALIBEN D O BHIKHABHAI RAMSIBHAI JOTAVA W O DANABHAI KANABHAI ZALA
Respondent(s)
-
1.BHIKHABHAI RAMSIBHAI JOTAVA Advocate - R.A.SIRAJI
-
2.JIVTIBEN BHIKHABHAI JOTAVA W O BABUBHAI @ UKABHAI LAKHMANBHAI NANDANIYA
-
3.DHARMISHTHABEN BHIKHABHAI JOTAVA
-
4.MINOR JAYNIL BHIKHABHAI JOTAVA C O DHARMISHTHABEN BHIKHABHAI JOTAVA
-
5.MINOR SHITAL BHIKHABHAI JOTAVA C O DHARMISHTHABEN BHIKHABHAI JOTAVA
Case History
-
27-Mar-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
13-Feb-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
30-Jan-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
16-Jan-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Jan-2026
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Dec-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
21-Nov-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
17-Oct-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
19-Sep-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
29-Aug-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
08-Aug-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
18-Jul-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Jun-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
09-May-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge
-
25-Apr-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
28-Mar-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
28-Feb-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
14-Feb-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Feb-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
10-Jan-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Dec-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
22-Nov-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Oct-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Sep-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Aug-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
19-Jul-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
21-Jun-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
26-Apr-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
22-Mar-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
14-Mar-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Mar-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Mar-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
01-Mar-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
23-Feb-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
16-Feb-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Feb-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
02-Feb-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Jan-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
29-Dec-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
15-Dec-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
10-Nov-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
13-Oct-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
15-Sep-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Aug-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
28-Jul-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
21-Jul-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
14-Jul-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Jun-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Jun-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
05-May-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
21-Apr-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
31-Mar-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
03-Mar-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Feb-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
17-Feb-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Jan-2023
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
30-Dec-2022
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
02-Dec-2022
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
04-Nov-2022
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
30-Sep-2022
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
17-Sep-2022
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
02-Sep-2022
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
29-Jul-2022
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
24-Jun-2022
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
29-Apr-2022
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
28-Mar-2022
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
28-Feb-2022
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
27-Jan-2022
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
29-Dec-2021
Issues
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
20-Oct-2021
OrderView PDF
-
20-Oct-2021
OrderView PDF
-
20-Oct-2021
OrderView PDF
-
20-Oct-2021
OrderView PDF
Summary The petition was dismissed. The court found that Respondent No. 1 (the father) has absolute ownership rights over the ancestral agricultural property, as it is his self-acquired asset registered in his name. The daughters (petitioners) have no legal claim or inheritance rights to the property since Respondent No. 1 transferred it to Respondent No. 3 (his second wife) through a registered sale deed. The court rejected the petitioners' arguments regarding mental incapacity and concluded no relief could be granted under Hindu law regarding the undivided family property claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
20-Oct-2021
Issues
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
04-Oct-2021
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
20-Sep-2021
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
06-Sep-2021
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
18-Aug-2021
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
20-Jul-2021
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
25-Jun-2021
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
19-Jun-2021
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
29-May-2021
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
19-May-2021
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
28-Apr-2021
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
31-Mar-2021
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
10-Mar-2021
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
17-Feb-2021
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
25-Jan-2021
Hearing On Injunction Application
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
21-Jan-2021
Cross-Objection/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
07-Jan-2021
Cross-Objection/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
22-Dec-2020
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Dec-2020
Case filed
Registration No. 9/2020
Summary The petition was dismissed. The court found that Respondent No. 1 (the father) has absolute ownership rights over the ancestral agricultural property, as it is his self-acquired asset registered in his name. The daughters (petitioners) have no legal claim or inheritance rights to the property since Respondent No. 1 transferred it to Respondent No. 3 (his second wife) through a registered sale deed. The court rejected the petitioners' arguments regarding mental incapacity and concluded no relief could be granted under Hindu law regarding the undivided family property claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts