KAMALIYA RAJABHAI RAMBHAI vs NATHUBHAI KALABHAI KAMALIYA Advocate - R V BHALGARIYA — 36/2019
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 37,38,. Status: DEFENDANT EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJJN060003642019
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
36/2019
Filing Date
01-04-2019
Registration No
36/2019
Registration Date
01-04-2019
Court
TALUKA COURT, MALIA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KAMALIYA RAJABHAI RAMBHAI
Adv. D D DEVANI
Respondent(s)
NATHUBHAI KALABHAI KAMALIYA Advocate - R V BHALGARIYA
HAMIRBHAI NATHUBHAI KAMALIYA
Adv. R V BHALGARIYA
KARANSINH NATHUBHA KAMALIYA
Adv. R V BHALGARIYA
DILIPBHAI NATHUBHAI KAMALIYA
Adv. R V BHALGARIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE | |
| 30-01-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE | |
| 26-12-2025 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE | |
| 07-11-2025 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE | |
| 29-09-2025 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary This is a civil case (RCS No.36/2019) from the Principal Civil Court, Maliya Hatina, decided on 18 February 2022. The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of land ownership rights and directed the plaintiff to bear the court costs. The judgment finds that the defendant's ownership claims to the disputed land parcels are valid based on registered documents and survey records, while the plaintiff failed to establish superior title or ownership, and the first decree suit was barred by law. The court also rejected the plaintiff's objections and pleas of estoppel against the defendant's possession and ownership rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a civil case (RCS No.36/2019) from the Principal Civil Court, Maliya Hatina, decided on 18 February 2022. The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of land ownership rights and directed the plaintiff to bear the court costs. The judgment finds that the defendant's ownership claims to the disputed land parcels are valid based on registered documents and survey records, while the plaintiff failed to establish superior title or ownership, and the first decree suit was barred by law. The court also rejected the plaintiff's objections and pleas of estoppel against the defendant's possession and ownership rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts