DANABHAI GOVINDBHAI KATIRA vs HEIRS OF DECEASED DEVABHAI GOVINDBHAI KATIRA — 3/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O-43,R-1(R). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 24th March 2026.
MCA - MISC. CIVIL APPEAL (APPEAL FROM ORDER)
CNR: GJGS090002742025
Filing Number
3/2025
Filing Date
20-Mar-2025
Registration No
3/2025
Registration Date
20-Mar-2025
Court
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - KODINAR
Judge
1-2nd Addl District Judge
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 07-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DANABHAI GOVINDBHAI KATIRA
Adv. N V RATHOD
-
2.HEIRS OF DECEASED AEBHABHAI GOVINDBHAI KATIRA(Legal Heir) 2.
-
3.GANGABEN AEBHABHAI KATIRA
Respondent(s)
-
1.HEIRS OF DECEASED DEVABHAI GOVINDBHAI KATIRA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
CASE SUMMARY: MCA-03/2025 Court's Decision: The appellate court dismissed the civil appeal filed by Danabhai Govindbhai Katira and heirs of Aebhabhai Govindbhai Katira against the trial court's order. The court upheld the trial court's rejection of the appellants' request for maintaining the disputed agricultural land in status quo and approved the respondents' counter-claim for exclusive possession, finding the respondents had superior ownership and possession rights based on revenue records and bhoomidan (land donation) documentation dating to 1955. Key Reasoning: The court determined the respondents established a prima facie case demonstrating they held uninterrupted possession and cultivation rights over the land through revenue records, while appellants failed to prove their claimed possession or ownership despite filing multiple cases with contradictory claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
2nd Addl District Judge
-
20-Mar-2026
Final Arguments
2nd Addl District Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Final Arguments
2nd Addl District Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Final Arguments
2nd Addl District Judge
-
28-Feb-2026
Final Arguments
2nd Addl District Judge
-
26-Feb-2026
Final Arguments
3rd Addl District Judge
-
05-Feb-2026
Final Arguments
3rd Addl District Judge
-
31-Jan-2026
Final Arguments
3rd Addl District Judge
-
22-Jan-2026
Final Arguments
3rd Addl District Judge
-
15-Jan-2026
Final Arguments
3rd Addl District Judge
-
08-Jan-2026
Interim Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
18-Dec-2025
Interim Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
04-Dec-2025
Interim Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
27-Nov-2025
Interim Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
20-Nov-2025
Interim Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
06-Nov-2025
Interim Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
13-Oct-2025
Interim Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
30-Sep-2025
Interim Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
15-Sep-2025
Interim Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
08-Sep-2025
Interim Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
20-Aug-2025
Interim Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
07-Aug-2025
Interim Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
31-Jul-2025
Admission/Urgent Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
17-Jul-2025
Admission/Urgent Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
03-Jul-2025
Admission/Urgent Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
12-Jun-2025
Admission/Urgent Hearing
4th Addl District Judge
-
08-May-2025
Admission/Urgent Hearing
Addl. District Judge
-
17-Apr-2025
Admission/Urgent Hearing
Addl. District Judge
-
03-Apr-2025
Admission/Urgent Hearing
Addl. District Judge
-
20-Mar-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Mar-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 3/2025
CASE SUMMARY: MCA-03/2025 Court's Decision: The appellate court dismissed the civil appeal filed by Danabhai Govindbhai Katira and heirs of Aebhabhai Govindbhai Katira against the trial court's order. The court upheld the trial court's rejection of the appellants' request for maintaining the disputed agricultural land in status quo and approved the respondents' counter-claim for exclusive possession, finding the respondents had superior ownership and possession rights based on revenue records and bhoomidan (land donation) documentation dating to 1955. Key Reasoning: The court determined the respondents established a prima facie case demonstrating they held uninterrupted possession and cultivation rights over the land through revenue records, while appellants failed to prove their claimed possession or ownership despite filing multiple cases with contradictory claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts