HEIRS OF LATE DEVAJIBHAI GOVINDBHAI ZINZUVADIYA MRS. VANITABEN DEVJIBHAI ZINZUVADIYA vs HARSUKHBHAI RAVJIBHAI BUSA Advocate - V D DOBARIYA — 54/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 16th May 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJJN030007852021
Filing Number
54/2021
Filing Date
29-10-2021
Registration No
54/2021
Registration Date
29-10-2021
Court
TALUKA COURT, MENDARDA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
16th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
HEIRS OF LATE DEVAJIBHAI GOVINDBHAI ZINZUVADIYA MRS. VANITABEN DEVJIBHAI ZINZUVADIYA
Adv. R.M.BALOLIYA
Respondent(s)
HARSUKHBHAI RAVJIBHAI BUSA Advocate - V D DOBARIYA
MRS. BHAVNABEN HARSUKHBHAI BUSA
Adv. V D DOBARIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 15-05-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 21-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 07-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 18-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary Court Decision: The Principal Civil Judge of Mendarda dismissed the widow plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction on May 16, 2026. Key Reasoning: While acknowledging the plaintiff inherited her deceased husband's 82.06 sq. yard property under the Hindu Succession Act, the court found she failed to prove that the specific area where she constructed a stone wall fell within her legal boundaries. A court-appointed commissioner's report revealed the plaintiff's construction encroached onto a public thoroughfare beyond the defendant's residence, constituting illegal encroachment on public land—which cannot be protected by injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Court Decision: The Principal Civil Judge of Mendarda dismissed the widow plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction on May 16, 2026. Key Reasoning: While acknowledging the plaintiff inherited her deceased husband's 82.06 sq. yard property under the Hindu Succession Act, the court found she failed to prove that the specific area where she constructed a stone wall fell within her legal boundaries. A court-appointed commissioner's report revealed the plaintiff's construction encroached onto a public thoroughfare beyond the defendant's residence, constituting illegal encroachment on public land—which cannot be protected by injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts