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

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

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

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Section 9,

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

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

25-11-2019
ORDER

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, KHEDA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case