JOSHI NIMESHCHAND RATILAL vs JOSHI HARSHADKUMAR DEVSHANKAR Advocate - R S YAGNIK — 29/2022

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38,5,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 21st April 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJMH050008972022

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

21st April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

29/2022

Filing Date

18-10-2022

Registration No

29/2022

Registration Date

18-10-2022

Court

TALUKA COURT, KHERALU

Judge

2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Acts & Sections

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Section 34,38,5,

Petitioner(s)

JOSHI NIMESHCHAND RATILAL

Adv. B A NAYAK

JOSHI JIGISHABEN NIMESHCHAN

Respondent(s)

JOSHI HARSHADKUMAR DEVSHANKAR Advocate - R S YAGNIK

JOSHI VIJAYPRASHAD REVASHANKAR

Adv. R S YAGNIK

JOSHI TUSHAR VIJAYPRASHAD

Adv. R S YAGNIK

JOSHI HARDIK VIJAYPRASHAD

Adv. R S YAGNIK

Hearing History

Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

07-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

04-02-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

22-12-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

17-11-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

26-09-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

15-07-2025
ORDER

Summary The court rejected the plaintiffs' application in Regular Civil Suit No. 29/2022. The judge found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of ownership over the disputed shop property because no registered deed or written agreement was executed to transfer title, as required under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to follow the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court rejected the plaintiffs' application in Regular Civil Suit No. 29/2022. The judge found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of ownership over the disputed shop property because no registered deed or written agreement was executed to transfer title, as required under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to follow the main suit. 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, KHERALU All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case