Lalitaben D/o. Khodabhai Maganbhai Raval Heirs of Late Khodabhai Maganbhai Raval vs Vaghajibhai Khodabhai Raval Heirs of Late Khodabhai Maganbhai Raval Advocate - N K GOHIL — 56/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
SPCS - SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKH110018432019
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
56/2019
Filing Date
25-11-2019
Registration No
56/2019
Registration Date
25-11-2019
Court
TALUKA COURT, KHEDA
Judge
3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Lalitaben D/o. Khodabhai Maganbhai Raval Heirs of Late Khodabhai Maganbhai Raval
Adv. B.M.VAGHELA
Respondent(s)
Vaghajibhai Khodabhai Raval Heirs of Late Khodabhai Maganbhai Raval Advocate - N K GOHIL
Mukul Hemantbhai Shah
Shilaben Mukulbhai Shah
Nareshbhai Lakharam Sharma
Dasharathbhai Prahladbhai Ozha
Circle Officer / Nayab Mamalatdar
Mamalatdar
Nayab Collector shri
District Collector Shri
Sachiv Shri Revenue Department,
SHYAM PRERNA DEVELOPERS NA PARTNER PATEL KAMLESHKUMAR KANTILAL
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 09-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 06-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 05-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 25-11-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary: The plaint filed by the plaintiff claiming a half share in ancestral property (Revenue Survey No. 87, Village Kanera, Kheda) and seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 9-2-2009 is null and void has been rejected. The court held that the plaintiff has no cause of action since her father died on 14-09-1990, before the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act came into force on 09-09-2005, and therefore she cannot claim coparcenary rights in ancestral property. The plaint was rejected under clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The plaint filed by the plaintiff claiming a half share in ancestral property (Revenue Survey No. 87, Village Kanera, Kheda) and seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 9-2-2009 is null and void has been rejected. The court held that the plaintiff has no cause of action since her father died on 14-09-1990, before the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act came into force on 09-09-2005, and therefore she cannot claim coparcenary rights in ancestral property. The plaint was rejected under clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts