HEIRS OF DECEASED BARIYA VECHATBHAI RATANSINH 1. BARIYA BHUPATSINH VECHATBHAI vs HEIRS OF DECEASED RATANSINH NANJIBHAI 1. BARIYA VAJESINH RATANSINH Advocate - N L VARIA — 142/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,39. Status: FINAL ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJPM040038502022
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
Filing Number
142/2022
Filing Date
17-11-2022
Registration No
142/2022
Registration Date
17-11-2022
Court
TALUKA COURT, HALOL
Judge
3-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
HEIRS OF DECEASED BARIYA VECHATBHAI RATANSINH 1. BARIYA BHUPATSINH VECHATBHAI
Adv. M A MIR
BARIYA RASIKBHAI VECHATBHAI
BARIYA JASVANTBHAI VECHATBHAI
BARIYA SURAJBEN BHARATSINH
Respondent(s)
HEIRS OF DECEASED RATANSINH NANJIBHAI 1. BARIYA VAJESINH RATANSINH Advocate - N L VARIA
BARIYA ADESINH RATANSINH
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-05-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 02-05-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 16-04-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 02-04-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 13-03-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 142/2022 Court: Gujarat High Court (Ahmedabad) Outcome: Petition DISMISSED. The court rejected the petitioners' claim for a mandatory injunction and found no first-instance case merit. The petitioners failed to provide primary documentary evidence establishing their alleged inheritance rights to the disputed agricultural land. Without proper substantiation of ownership claims through authenticated deeds or succession documents, the court ruled they were not entitled to the relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 142/2022 Court: Gujarat High Court (Ahmedabad) Outcome: Petition DISMISSED. The court rejected the petitioners' claim for a mandatory injunction and found no first-instance case merit. The petitioners failed to provide primary documentary evidence establishing their alleged inheritance rights to the disputed agricultural land. Without proper substantiation of ownership claims through authenticated deeds or succession documents, the court ruled they were not entitled to the relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts