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.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJKT040003912024

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

10th June 2026

Filing Number

27/2024

Filing Date

14-03-2024

Registration No

27/2024

Registration Date

14-03-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, MANDVI

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34

Petitioner(s)

VALJI SHAMJI BUCHIYA

Adv. J L HALAI

Respondent(s)

BHAVESH MOHANLAL SENGANI Advocate - V V MAHESHWARI

MANILAL KANJI PATEL

Adv. V V MAHESWARI

RAMESHKUMAR MULJI PATEL

Adv. V V MAHESHWARI

MOHMADSULEMAN RAMJAN SIDI

Adv. S A RAYMA

HELIN TEKCHAND SHAH (VISARIYA)

Adv. S A RAYMA

SWETA HEMCHAND SHAH (VISARIYA)

Adv. S A RAYMA

TEKCAND JETHALAL SHAH (VISARIYA)

Adv. S A RAYMA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

15-04-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

11-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

28-01-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

18-12-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

19-11-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

07-05-2025
ORDER
07-05-2025
ORDER

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, MANDVI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case