AJAYKUMAR BABUBHAI PARMAR vs NIMUBEN URFE NAYNABEN D/O BHAGVANBHAI DUDABHAI SOSA W/O RAJKUMAR URFE HARESHBHAI KARSHANBHAI VADHER — 11/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

RCA - REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL

CNR: GJGS090006262025

Filing Number

11/2025

Filing Date

15-Sep-2025

Registration No

11/2025

Registration Date

15-Sep-2025

Court

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - KODINAR

Judge

1-2nd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AJAYKUMAR BABUBHAI PARMAR

    Adv. H G RATHOD

  2. 2.SANJAYKUMAR BABUBHAI PARMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NIMUBEN URFE NAYNABEN D/O BHAGVANBHAI DUDABHAI SOSA W/O RAJKUMAR URFE HARESHBHAI KARSHANBHAI VADHER

  2. 2.UKABHAI DUDABHAI SOSA

    Adv. A P VALA

  3. 3.GENERAL MANAGER OF SHAPOORJI PALONJI ENERGY GUJARAT PVT LTD

    Adv. A P VALA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: RCA No-11/2025 Court Decision: The appellate court allowed the appeals (RCA No-06/2024, RCA No-03/2025, and RCA No-11/2025) filed by Ajaykumar Babubhai Parmar and Sanjaykumar Babubhai Parmar. The court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree dated May 8, 2026, finding that the original plaintiff's (Nimuben/Naynaben's) suit was barred by the law of limitation and that the defendants (appellants) were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the disputed agricultural properties. Key Reasoning: The court determined that the plaintiff's claim to ancestral property rights had expired under the Limitation Act, as she failed to initiate proceedings within the prescribed time period after attaining majority. Additionally, the defendants had purchased the land through registered sale deeds in 2006 and 2010 based on valid revenue records showing clear title, thereby acquiring protected ownership rights that could not be disturbed after such substantial passage of time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Addl District Judge

  4. 30-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    2nd Addl District Judge

  5. 18-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    2nd Addl District Judge

  6. 07-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl District Judge

  7. 25-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl District Judge

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl District Judge

  9. 10-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    2nd Addl District Judge

  10. 17-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  11. 03-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  12. 06-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  13. 03-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  14. 16-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  15. 09-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  16. 29-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  17. 15-Nov-2025

    Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  18. 01-Nov-2025

    Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  19. 04-Oct-2025

    Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  20. 15-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  21. 15-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 11/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCA No-11/2025 Court Decision: The appellate court allowed the appeals (RCA No-06/2024, RCA No-03/2025, and RCA No-11/2025) filed by Ajaykumar Babubhai Parmar and Sanjaykumar Babubhai Parmar. The court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree dated May 8, 2026, finding that the original plaintiff's (Nimuben/Naynaben's) suit was barred by the law of limitation and that the defendants (appellants) were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the disputed agricultural properties. Key Reasoning: The court determined that the plaintiff's claim to ancestral property rights had expired under the Limitation Act, as she failed to initiate proceedings within the prescribed time period after attaining majority. Additionally, the defendants had purchased the land through registered sale deeds in 2006 and 2010 based on valid revenue records showing clear title, thereby acquiring protected ownership rights that could not be disturbed after such substantial passage of time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case