VYAS DATTUKUMAR JIVANLAL vs BHAVESHKUMAR SURESHBHAI PATEL Advocate - K N KACHHIAPATEL — 9/2024
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 38. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 07th May 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKH110000282024
Filing Number
9/2024
Filing Date
10-Jan-2024
Registration No
9/2024
Registration Date
10-Jan-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, KHEDA
Judge
3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
Decision Date
07-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Last updated 16-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.VYAS DATTUKUMAR JIVANLAL
Adv. M K JADAV
Respondent(s)
-
1.BHAVESHKUMAR SURESHBHAI PATEL Advocate - K N KACHHIAPATEL
-
2.CHIEF OFFICERSHREE KHEDA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-May-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary of Case 9/2024 The court partially granted the petitioner's suit regarding disputed property in Kheda. The petitioner claimed ownership of agricultural land (Site Surveys 1800 and 1801) as ancestral family property and alleged that Respondent No. 1 illegally constructed structures on adjacent land (Site Survey 1899) without permission. The court found that Respondent No. 1 must remove unauthorized construction on the petitioner's property and public road, while declaring the petitioner's property rights valid. However, regarding Respondent No. 1's own property encroachment claims, the court found insufficient evidence to fully support the petitioner's allegations about unlawful obstruction of water drainage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-May-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
21-Apr-2026
Final Arguments
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
17-Mar-2026
Defendant Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
20-Feb-2026
Defendant Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
23-Jan-2026
Defendant Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
20-Dec-2025
Defendant Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
21-Nov-2025
Defendant Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
14-Nov-2025
Defendant Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
29-Oct-2025
Defendant Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
20-Sep-2025
Defendant Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
14-Aug-2025
Defendant Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
08-Jul-2025
Defendant Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
12-Jun-2025
Defendant Evidence
Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
23-Apr-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
05-Mar-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
05-Feb-2025
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
12-Dec-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
12-Nov-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
26-Sep-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
16-Aug-2024
Plaintiff Evidence
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
28-Jun-2024
Issues
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
08-May-2024
Issues
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
05-Apr-2024
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
22-Mar-2024
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
22-Feb-2024
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
09-Feb-2024
Written Statement/Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
12-Jan-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Jan-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 9/2024
Summary of Case 9/2024 The court partially granted the petitioner's suit regarding disputed property in Kheda. The petitioner claimed ownership of agricultural land (Site Surveys 1800 and 1801) as ancestral family property and alleged that Respondent No. 1 illegally constructed structures on adjacent land (Site Survey 1899) without permission. The court found that Respondent No. 1 must remove unauthorized construction on the petitioner's property and public road, while declaring the petitioner's property rights valid. However, regarding Respondent No. 1's own property encroachment claims, the court found insufficient evidence to fully support the petitioner's allegations about unlawful obstruction of water drainage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts