DEVJIBHAI PARSHOTAMBHAI VEKARIYA vs GOPALBHAI PARSHOTAMBHAI VEKARIYA — 80/2022
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 35,39. Status: ISSUES. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJRJ030015622022
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
Filing Number
80/2022
Filing Date
18-10-2022
Registration No
80/2022
Registration Date
18-10-2022
Court
TALUKA COURT, KOTDA SANGANI
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DEVJIBHAI PARSHOTAMBHAI VEKARIYA
Adv. S S HAPANI
Respondent(s)
GOPALBHAI PARSHOTAMBHAI VEKARIYA
BAVABHAI PARSOTAMBHAI VEKARIYA
ASHWINBHAI PARSOTAMBHAI VEKARIYA
Adv. K D SINOJIA
MAGANBHAI PARSOTAMBHAI VEKARIYA
PRABHABEN PARSOTAMBHAI VEKARIYA
KANTABEN PARSOTAMBHAI VEKARIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
ISSUES
ISSUES
ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-05-2026 | ISSUES |
| 11-03-2026 | ISSUES |
| 13-02-2026 | ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION |
| 19-01-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION |
| 20-12-2025 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION |
Interim Orders
Summary The petition filed under CPC Order 39, Rule 1(c) seeking a decree for partition of ancestral agricultural land and one-seventh share, along with a declaration that a 1920 will is illegal, has been dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of ownership or hereditary right to the disputed property, as the land was held by the plaintiff's father under a "possession-based" arrangement rather than as ancestral property, and no clear evidence of inheritance was provided. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The petition filed under CPC Order 39, Rule 1(c) seeking a decree for partition of ancestral agricultural land and one-seventh share, along with a declaration that a 1920 will is illegal, has been dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of ownership or hereditary right to the disputed property, as the land was held by the plaintiff's father under a "possession-based" arrangement rather than as ancestral property, and no clear evidence of inheritance was provided. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts