JAMNABEN SHANABHAI SENVA vs PATEL JITENDRABHAI MAHADEVBHAI Advocate - P G SHAHPATEL — 147/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 23rd April 2026.

Case disposed

RCA - REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL

CNR: GJKH010018442022

Filing Number

147/2022

Filing Date

13-May-2022

Registration No

147/2022

Registration Date

13-May-2022

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD

Judge

6-3rd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

23-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 96

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JAMNABEN SHANABHAI SENVA

    Adv. K N PATEL

  2. 2.JASHIBEN @ JIVIBEN BABARBHAI SENVA

    Adv. K N PATEL

  3. 3.SHANTABEN BABARBHAI SINDHVA

    Adv. K N PATEL

  4. 4.PUNAMBHAI RAMABHAI SENVA

    Adv. K N PATEL

  5. 5.FULABHAI RAMABHAI SENVA

    Adv. K N PATEL

  6. 6.KAMLABEN RAVJIBHAI SENVA

    Adv. K N PATEL

  7. 7.MADHIBEN KANTIBHAI SENVA

    Adv. K N PATEL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PATEL JITENDRABHAI MAHADEVBHAI Advocate - P G SHAHPATEL

  2. 2.PATEL RAMESHKUMAR MAHADEVBHAI

    Adv. P G SHAHPATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: RCA 147/2022 Court Decision: The appellate court DISMISSED the appeal and CONFIRMED the trial court's judgment favoring the plaintiffs (respondents). Key Facts: The parties executed a registered agreement to sell agricultural land in March 2016 for Rs. 39,50,000, with plaintiffs paying Rs. 30,00,000 upfront and taking possession. During title clearance procedures, the actual property area was discovered to be 3-67-25 hectares instead of the stated 5-00-00 hectares, making the correct value Rs. 29,01,275. The plaintiffs demanded a refund of Rs. 98,725 and performance of the sale deed; defendants refused, claiming the original price was Rs. 60,00,000. Court's Ruling: The court held that the defendants had already accepted substantial part-consideration and gone to the Sub-registrar's office for registration, thereby admitting the agreement's validity. The unregistered counter-document defendants relied upon held no legal sanctity. The plaintiffs proved they were ready and willing to perform by conducting all title-clearing procedures as agreed. The court awarded plaintiffs specific performance of the contract and ordered defendants to refund Rs. 98,725. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    3rd Addl District Judge

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  5. 02-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  6. 20-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  8. 24-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  9. 03-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  10. 20-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  11. 06-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  12. 23-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  13. 17-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  14. 02-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  15. 18-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  16. 04-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  17. 15-Oct-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  18. 24-Sep-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  19. 16-Sep-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  20. 02-Sep-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  21. 19-Aug-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  22. 06-Aug-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  23. 29-Jul-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  24. 08-Jul-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  25. 01-Jul-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  26. 24-Jun-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  27. 17-Jun-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  28. 10-Jun-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  29. 06-May-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  30. 29-Apr-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  31. 22-Apr-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  32. 01-Apr-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  33. 18-Mar-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  34. 04-Mar-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  35. 11-Feb-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  36. 28-Jan-2025

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  37. 24-Dec-2024

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  38. 10-Dec-2024

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  39. 26-Nov-2024

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  40. 07-Nov-2024

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  41. 22-Oct-2024

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  42. 01-Oct-2024

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  43. 17-Sep-2024

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  44. 27-Aug-2024

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  45. 12-Aug-2024

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  46. 22-Jul-2024

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  47. 09-Jul-2024

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  48. 18-Jun-2024

    Final Arguments

    3rd Addl District Judge

  49. 21-May-2024

    Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  50. 02-May-2024

    Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  51. 23-Apr-2024

    Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  52. 19-Mar-2024

    Judgement

    4th Addl District Judge

  53. 05-Mar-2024

    Judgement

    4th Addl District Judge

  54. 20-Feb-2024

    Judgement

    4th Addl District Judge

  55. 23-Jan-2024

    Order On Interim Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  56. 29-Dec-2023

    Order On Interim Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  57. 12-Dec-2023

    Order On Interim Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  58. 21-Nov-2023

    Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  59. 21-Oct-2023

    Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  60. 26-Sep-2023

    Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  61. 22-Aug-2023

    Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  62. 25-Jul-2023

    Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  63. 11-Jul-2023

    Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  64. 13-Jun-2023

    Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  65. 12-May-2023

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  66. 06-May-2023

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  67. 25-Apr-2023

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  68. 11-Apr-2023

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  69. 16-Mar-2023

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  70. 21-Feb-2023

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  71. 24-Jan-2023

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  72. 20-Dec-2022

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  73. 22-Nov-2022

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  74. 11-Oct-2022

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  75. 30-Aug-2022

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  76. 19-Jul-2022

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  77. 14-Jun-2022

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  78. 13-Jun-2022

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  79. 09-Jun-2022

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  80. 04-Jun-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  81. 13-May-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 147/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCA 147/2022 Court Decision: The appellate court DISMISSED the appeal and CONFIRMED the trial court's judgment favoring the plaintiffs (respondents). Key Facts: The parties executed a registered agreement to sell agricultural land in March 2016 for Rs. 39,50,000, with plaintiffs paying Rs. 30,00,000 upfront and taking possession. During title clearance procedures, the actual property area was discovered to be 3-67-25 hectares instead of the stated 5-00-00 hectares, making the correct value Rs. 29,01,275. The plaintiffs demanded a refund of Rs. 98,725 and performance of the sale deed; defendants refused, claiming the original price was Rs. 60,00,000. Court's Ruling: The court held that the defendants had already accepted substantial part-consideration and gone to the Sub-registrar's office for registration, thereby admitting the agreement's validity. The unregistered counter-document defendants relied upon held no legal sanctity. The plaintiffs proved they were ready and willing to perform by conducting all title-clearing procedures as agreed. The court awarded plaintiffs specific performance of the contract and ordered defendants to refund Rs. 98,725. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case