SURESH BHIKHALAL JANGAM T/H RAJESH MANMOHANSINH GOHIL vs BABUDERU SUDAR DERU PADHRA — 41/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 28th April 2026.

Case disposed

RCA - REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL

CNR: GJKT010007522023

Filing Number

41/2023

Filing Date

04-Feb-2023

Registration No

41/2023

Registration Date

04-Feb-2023

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BHUJ

Judge

26-6th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

28-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 21-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SURESH BHIKHALAL JANGAM T/H RAJESH MANMOHANSINH GOHIL

    Adv. D H THAKKER

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BABUDERU SUDAR DERU PADHRA

  2. 2.RAMJI MAVJI PADHRA

    Adv. M H LODHIA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 28-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary The 6th Additional District Judge, Bhuj rejected the appellant's appeal and confirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit claiming a 50% share in ancestral property. The court found the suit barred by limitations (filed 54 years after a 1964 revenue entry), held that the plaintiff failed to prove the property was ancestral (only one generation inherited), and noted the plaintiff's power-of-attorney holder lacked personal knowledge of facts, placing the burden of proof squarely on the plaintiff who could not sustain it. The defendant's 30-40 years of uninterrupted possession without objection further defeated the plaintiff's claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    6th Addl District Judge

  4. 17-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    6th Addl District Judge

  5. 03-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    6th Addl District Judge

  6. 18-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    6th Addl District Judge

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    6th Addl District Judge

  8. 27-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    6th Addl District Judge

  9. 02-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    6th Addl District Judge

  10. 12-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    6th Addl District Judge

  11. 06-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    6th Addl District Judge

  12. 07-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    6th Addl District Judge

  13. 29-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    6th Addl District Judge

  14. 29-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    6th Addl District Judge

  15. 25-Jul-2025

    Summons - Notice

    6th Addl District Judge

  16. 30-Jun-2025

    For R&P

    6th Addl District Judge

  17. 24-Apr-2025

    Hearing

    5th Addl District Judge

  18. 20-Feb-2025

    Summons - Notice

    7th Addl District Judge

  19. 17-Jan-2025

    Summons - Notice

    7th Addl District Judge

  20. 12-Nov-2024

    Summons - Notice

    7th Addl District Judge

  21. 05-Sep-2024

    Summons - Notice

    7th Addl District Judge

  22. 06-Aug-2024

    Summons - Notice

    7th Addl District Judge

  23. 11-Jun-2024

    Summons - Notice

    7th Addl District Judge

  24. 07-May-2024

    Summons - Notice

    Principal District And Sessions Judge

  25. 29-Mar-2024

    Summons - Notice

    Principal District And Sessions Judge

  26. 16-Feb-2024

    Summons - Notice

    5th Addl District Judge

  27. 29-Dec-2023

    Summons - Notice

    5th Addl District Judge

  28. 30-Nov-2023

    Summons - Notice

    5th Addl District Judge

  29. 12-Oct-2023

    Summons - Notice

    5th Addl District Judge

  30. 15-Sep-2023

    Summons - Notice

    5th Addl District Judge

  31. 05-Aug-2023

    Summons - Notice

    5th Addl District Judge

  32. 07-Jul-2023

    Summons - Notice

    5th Addl District Judge

  33. 03-Jun-2023

    Summons - Notice

    5th Addl District Judge

  34. 15-Apr-2023

    Summons - Notice

    5th Addl District Judge

  35. 03-Mar-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  36. 04-Feb-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 41/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The 6th Additional District Judge, Bhuj rejected the appellant's appeal and confirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit claiming a 50% share in ancestral property. The court found the suit barred by limitations (filed 54 years after a 1964 revenue entry), held that the plaintiff failed to prove the property was ancestral (only one generation inherited), and noted the plaintiff's power-of-attorney holder lacked personal knowledge of facts, placing the burden of proof squarely on the plaintiff who could not sustain it. The defendant's 30-40 years of uninterrupted possession without objection further defeated the plaintiff's claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case