LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED HARIJAN BABUBHA MANABHAI (DECEASED)(Legal Heir) vs LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED PATEL BHEMABHAI KALUBHAI (DECEASED) — 13/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 30th April 2026.
RCA - REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL
CNR: GJPM010004412024
Filing Number
13/2024
Filing Date
15-Feb-2024
Registration No
13/2024
Registration Date
15-Feb-2024
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT GODHRA
Judge
6-5th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
30-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 07-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED HARIJAN BABUBHA MANABHAI (DECEASED)(Legal Heir)
Adv. C C BARIA1.
-
2.HARIJAN KANTABEN Wo BABUBHAI 1.
-
3.HARIJAN DILIPBHAI BABUBHAI
Adv. C C BARIA1.
-
4.HARIJAN SANATBHAI BABUBHAI 1.
-
5.HARIJAN MUKESBHAI BABUBHAI 1.
-
6.HARIJAN VASANTBHAI BABUBHAI 1.
-
7.HARIJAN HIMMATBHAI BABUBHAI
-
8.HARIJAN SANATBHAI BABUBHAI
Adv. C C BARIA
-
9.HARIJAN DIPSINH BABUBHAI
Adv. C C BARIA
-
10.HARIJAN MUKESHBHAI BABUBHAI
Adv. C C BARIA
-
11.HARIJAN KAMLABEN KALUBHAI
Adv. C C BARIA
-
12.HARIJAN SANJAYKUMAR KALUBHAI
Adv. C C BARIA
-
13.HARIJAN NARESBHAI KALUBHAI
Adv. C C BARIA
-
14.HARIJAN SHIVRAMBHAI KALUBHAI
Adv. C C BARIA
-
15.HARIJAN PARVATBHAI LAKHABHAI
Adv. C C BARIA
-
16.HARIJAN VINODBHAI PARVATBHAI
Adv. C C BARIA
-
17.HARIJAN GULABBHAI PARVATBHAI
Adv. C C BARIA
-
18.HARIJAN MADHUBEN PARVATBHAI
Adv. C C BARIA
Respondent(s)
-
1.LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED PATEL BHEMABHAI KALUBHAI (DECEASED)
-
2.PATEL KALUBHAI RAMABHAI
-
3.PATEL BHARATBHAI BHIKHABHAI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Apr-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: Regular Civil Appeal No. 13/2024 Court Decision: The appellate court rejected the appeal and confirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the sale deed was forged or fabricated, and thus failed to establish their title and possession over the disputed agricultural land in Sarsaav village, Godhra. Key Reasoning: The appellants alleged a 1969 registered sale deed was false, but produced insufficient cogent evidence to support forgery claims. The court noted the 48-year delay in filing suit after the deed's execution was implausible, and the appellants provided no independent witnesses, court commissions, or revenue records proving their possession and cultivation of the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Apr-2026
Disposed
5th Addl District Judge
-
18-Apr-2026
Final Arguments
5th Addl District Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Final Arguments
5th Addl District Judge
-
28-Feb-2026
Final Arguments
5th Addl District Judge
-
31-Jan-2026
Final Arguments
5th Addl District Judge
-
18-Dec-2025
Final Arguments
5th Addl District Judge
-
16-Oct-2025
Final Arguments
5th Addl District Judge
-
25-Jul-2025
Final Arguments
5th Addl District Judge
-
16-Jun-2025
Final Arguments
5th Addl District Judge
-
13-Mar-2025
Final Arguments
5th Addl District Judge
-
04-Jan-2025
Final Arguments
5th Addl District Judge
-
22-Nov-2024
Final Arguments
5th Addl District Judge
-
18-Sep-2024
Final Arguments
5th Addl District Judge
-
16-Aug-2024
Final Arguments
5th Addl District Judge
-
03-Jul-2024
Final Arguments
5th Addl District Judge
-
26-Apr-2024
For R&P
4th Addl District Judge
-
18-Mar-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
15-Feb-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 13/2024
Case Summary: Regular Civil Appeal No. 13/2024 Court Decision: The appellate court rejected the appeal and confirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the sale deed was forged or fabricated, and thus failed to establish their title and possession over the disputed agricultural land in Sarsaav village, Godhra. Key Reasoning: The appellants alleged a 1969 registered sale deed was false, but produced insufficient cogent evidence to support forgery claims. The court noted the 48-year delay in filing suit after the deed's execution was implausible, and the appellants provided no independent witnesses, court commissions, or revenue records proving their possession and cultivation of the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts