KANUBEN NARENDRASINH GOHIL vs DECEASED VIJAYSINH CHANDRASINH GOHIL Advocate - M S PATHAK — 40/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 36,38,. Status: HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJNR060015542022
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
40/2022
Filing Date
10-11-2022
Registration No
40/2022
Registration Date
10-11-2022
Court
TALUKA COURT, GARUDESHWAR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KANUBEN NARENDRASINH GOHIL
Adv. S K JOSHI
PRADHYUMANSINH NARENDRASINH GOHIL
Respondent(s)
DECEASED VIJAYSINH CHANDRASINH GOHIL Advocate - M S PATHAK
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION | |
| 10-03-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION | |
| 17-02-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION | |
| 19-01-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION | |
| 07-01-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION |
Interim Orders
The plaintiffs' petition for a declaration of adverse possession (ownership claim) on disputed land is rejected and dismissed. The court found that the plaintiffs' pleading is self-contradictory, lacks a valid cause of action, and fails to meet legal requirements under the Civil Procedure Code; additionally, the court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot simultaneously claim both ownership and adverse possession rights over the same property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The plaintiffs' petition for a declaration of adverse possession (ownership claim) on disputed land is rejected and dismissed. The court found that the plaintiffs' pleading is self-contradictory, lacks a valid cause of action, and fails to meet legal requirements under the Civil Procedure Code; additionally, the court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot simultaneously claim both ownership and adverse possession rights over the same property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts