VAHORA ISHAK MAHAMMAD GULAMRASUL vs HABIBBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH — 14/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 39,9,151. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKH090002192024
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
14/2024
Filing Date
06-03-2024
Registration No
14/2024
Registration Date
06-03-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, MAHUDHA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VAHORA ISHAK MAHAMMAD GULAMRASUL
Adv. G K MAKWANA
Respondent(s)
HABIBBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH
MAHAMMADHANIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH
HALIMBIBI IBRAHIMKHATUN
HANIFABIBI IRAHIM KHATUN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 12-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 03-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 21-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 09-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 14/2024 Outcome: The court allowed the petitioner's application for a declaratory decree. The Principal Civil Judge ruled that petitioner Vahora Ishak Mahammad Gulamrasul has established direct possession and ownership rights over the disputed agricultural land in Mahudha through 45+ years of continuous cultivation, harvesting, and enjoyment of produce, thereby acquiring ownership through adverse possession under law. The respondents are permanently restrained from interfering with the petitioner's possession and from transferring, encumbering, or creating any charges on the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 14/2024 Outcome: The court allowed the petitioner's application for a declaratory decree. The Principal Civil Judge ruled that petitioner Vahora Ishak Mahammad Gulamrasul has established direct possession and ownership rights over the disputed agricultural land in Mahudha through 45+ years of continuous cultivation, harvesting, and enjoyment of produce, thereby acquiring ownership through adverse possession under law. The respondents are permanently restrained from interfering with the petitioner's possession and from transferring, encumbering, or creating any charges on the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts