BHAIKHABHAI MANGALBHAI ZALA MAKVANA(Legal Heir) vs RAVJIBHAI SHANABHAI CHAHUN — 51/2016

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 038. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJKH040018922016

Case disposed

Filing Number

51/2016

Filing Date

03-10-2016

Registration No

51/2016

Registration Date

05-10-2016

Court

TALUKA COURT, MATAR

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

24th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 038

Petitioner(s)

BHAIKHABHAI MANGALBHAI ZALA MAKVANA(Legal Heir)

Adv. U R PRAJAPATI

Respondent(s)

RAVJIBHAI SHANABHAI CHAHUN

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

24-03-2026

Disposed

16-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

02-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

11-02-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

27-01-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

24-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT
24-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary of Case RCS/51/2016 The court partially allowed the plaintiff's suit regarding possession and use of village property (Gram Panchayat Milkat No. 2) in Vansar, Matar district. The plaintiff proved ownership and current possession of the property measuring 9×56 feet but failed to conclusively establish the alleged 5×10 feet encroachment by the defendant. Accordingly, the court decreed that defendants cannot encroach on the plaintiff's property while dismissing the encroachment claim; both parties bear their own litigation costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case RCS/51/2016 The court partially allowed the plaintiff's suit regarding possession and use of village property (Gram Panchayat Milkat No. 2) in Vansar, Matar district. The plaintiff proved ownership and current possession of the property measuring 9×56 feet but failed to conclusively establish the alleged 5×10 feet encroachment by the defendant. Accordingly, the court decreed that defendants cannot encroach on the plaintiff's property while dismissing the encroachment claim; both parties bear their own litigation costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, MATAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case