LAXMANJI JENAJI vs PATEL RACHHODBHAI RAMABHAI Advocate - M G SHAIKH — 85/2023

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 35,39,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 08th May 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJGN030012472023

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

08th May 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

85/2023

Filing Date

05-05-2023

Registration No

85/2023

Registration Date

05-05-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, DEHGAM

Judge

2-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Acts & Sections

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Section 35,39,
IA/1/2023 Classification : INTERIM APPLICATION Section LAXMANJI JENAJIPATEL RACHHODBHAI RAMABHAI

Petitioner(s)

LAXMANJI JENAJI

Adv. A N MANSURI

SAVITABEN WD/O RANCHHODBHAI JENAJI

ISHWARBHAI RANCHHODBHAI

BHANUBHAI POPATBHAI

RAKESHBHAI POPATBHAI

KANJIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI POA HOLDER OF 1 TO 5

Respondent(s)

PATEL RACHHODBHAI RAMABHAI Advocate - M G SHAIKH

BHOI CHANDUBHAI KHODIDAS

CHAUHAN BALAJI RAMAJI

Adv. M G SHAIKH

ASHABEN PARBATJI

Adv. M G SHAIKH

SOLANKI ANJANABEN PRATAPSINH

Adv. M G SHAIKH

Hearing History

Judge: 2-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

05-03-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

08-01-2026

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

16-10-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

18-07-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

26-06-2025

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

25-10-2024
ORDER

SUMMARY: The court rejected the plaintiffs' suit seeking cancellation of a registered agricultural land sale deed dated 02.07.2009. The court held that non-payment of sale consideration alone cannot invalidate a completed registered sale, and the plaintiffs' claim was vexatious and meritless under Order VII Rule 11(a). The plaint was dismissed with the plaintiff's petition being allowed to the extent that the defendant's unlawful deed was declared void, but the registered sale deed itself remains valid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: The court rejected the plaintiffs' suit seeking cancellation of a registered agricultural land sale deed dated 02.07.2009. The court held that non-payment of sale consideration alone cannot invalidate a completed registered sale, and the plaintiffs' claim was vexatious and meritless under Order VII Rule 11(a). The plaint was dismissed with the plaintiff's petition being allowed to the extent that the defendant's unlawful deed was declared void, but the registered sale deed itself remains valid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DEHGAM All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case