VALJI SHAMJI BUCHIYA vs BHAVESH MOHANLAL SENGANI Advocate - V V MAHESHWARI — 27/2024

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34. Status: Plaintiff Evidence. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.

Plaintiff Evidence Next hearing 10-Jun-2026 this date has passed

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJKT040003912024

Filing Number

27/2024

Filing Date

14-Mar-2024

Registration No

27/2024

Registration Date

14-Mar-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, MANDVI

Judge

1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Last updated 21-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VALJI SHAMJI BUCHIYA

    Adv. J L HALAI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BHAVESH MOHANLAL SENGANI Advocate - V V MAHESHWARI

  2. 2.MANILAL KANJI PATEL

    Adv. V V MAHESWARI

  3. 3.RAMESHKUMAR MULJI PATEL

    Adv. V V MAHESHWARI

  4. 4.MOHMADSULEMAN RAMJAN SIDI

    Adv. S A RAYMA

  5. 5.HELIN TEKCHAND SHAH (VISARIYA)

    Adv. S A RAYMA

  6. 6.SWETA HEMCHAND SHAH (VISARIYA)

    Adv. S A RAYMA

  7. 7.TEKCAND JETHALAL SHAH (VISARIYA)

    Adv. S A RAYMA

Case History

  1. 10-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 28-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 18-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 19-Nov-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 16-Oct-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 17-Sep-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 06-Aug-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 02-Jul-2025

    Plaintiffs Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 09-May-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 07-May-2025

    OrderView PDF

  13. 07-May-2025

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of their suit seeking possession of agricultural land in Mandvi, Kutch. The court held that the plaintiff, who had occupied the property for 22 years as a caretaker, has no legal right to claim ownership or possession, as no title can be acquired through gratuitous occupation. The judgment established key legal principles that caretakers and servants cannot acquire any property rights regardless of length of possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  14. 07-May-2025

    Issues

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 06-May-2025

    Order On Injuction Application

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 02-May-2025

    Order On Injuction Application

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 24-Apr-2025

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 20-Mar-2025

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 06-Mar-2025

    Order

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 28-Feb-2025

    Order

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 30-Jan-2025

    Order

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 19-Dec-2024

    Hearing

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 13-Nov-2024

    Reply To Counter Claim

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 17-Oct-2024

    Reply To Counter Claim

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 08-Aug-2024

    Reply To Counter Claim

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 04-Jul-2024

    Reply

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  27. 08-May-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 14-Mar-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 27/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of their suit seeking possession of agricultural land in Mandvi, Kutch. The court held that the plaintiff, who had occupied the property for 22 years as a caretaker, has no legal right to claim ownership or possession, as no title can be acquired through gratuitous occupation. The judgment established key legal principles that caretakers and servants cannot acquire any property rights regardless of length of possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case