ANILABHAI CHHAGANBHAI BARODIYA vs AMRUTBHAI CHHAGANBHAI BARODIYA Advocate - J Y NAIK — 91/2015
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 034,038,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 16th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJNV030019272015
Next Hearing
16th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
91/2015
Filing Date
18-09-2015
Registration No
91/2015
Registration Date
18-09-2015
Court
TALUKA COURT, GANDEVI
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ANILABHAI CHHAGANBHAI BARODIYA
Adv. V D NAIK
Respondent(s)
AMRUTBHAI CHHAGANBHAI BARODIYA Advocate - J Y NAIK
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 02-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 01-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 18-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 16-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's suit under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, finding that the plaintiff lacks legal standing to claim ownership of the disputed agricultural land because he is neither a farmer nor an agricultural laborer. The court held that under applicable land laws, only farmers or agricultural laborers can own, partition, or inherit agricultural land, and since the plaintiff failed to establish this essential status, his claim is barred by law and must be dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court rejected the plaintiff's suit under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, finding that the plaintiff lacks legal standing to claim ownership of the disputed agricultural land because he is neither a farmer nor an agricultural laborer. The court held that under applicable land laws, only farmers or agricultural laborers can own, partition, or inherit agricultural land, and since the plaintiff failed to establish this essential status, his claim is barred by law and must be dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts