Bhagawatiben D/o.Pravibhai Meghajibhai Patel W/o.Natvarlal Ambalal Patel vs Lakhiben D/o.Nanabhai Pujabhai Parmar Advocate - R.J.SONI — 35/2017

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 034,038. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 01st May 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJKH170020022017

Case disposed

Filing Number

35/2017

Filing Date

15-07-2010

Registration No

35/2017

Registration Date

15-07-2010

Court

Taluka Court, Galteshwar

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

01st May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 034,038

Petitioner(s)

Bhagawatiben D/o.Pravibhai Meghajibhai Patel W/o.Natvarlal Ambalal Patel

Adv. K.N.PATEL

Respondent(s)

Lakhiben D/o.Nanabhai Pujabhai Parmar Advocate - R.J.SONI

Doliben D/o.Maganbhai Pujabhai Parmar

Nanduben D/o.Maganbhai Pujabhai Parmar

Champabem D/o.Maganbhai Pujabhai Parmar

Revaben D/o.Maganbhai Pujabhai Parmar

Knowing women as Sudhaben W/o.Rangitbhai Nanabhai Parmar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

01-05-2026

Disposed

17-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

12-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

18-02-2026

JUDGEMENT

20-01-2026

JUDGEMENT

Final Orders / Judgements

01-05-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: RCS No. 35/2017 Court Decision: The court granted the petitioner (Bhagawatiben) a declaration of title and perpetual injunction protecting her ownership and possession of agricultural land (Survey No. 514/1, Sonippur village, Thasra taluka, Kheda district). The court restrained respondents from interfering with the petitioner's cultivation rights and ordered them to bear case costs. Key Reasoning: The court found that the petitioner established her legal ownership and direct possession of the disputed land through registered sale deed (dated 09/09/2005) and continuous cultivation. Respondents failed to produce credible evidence challenging these claims or proving their alleged ownership rights. The court applied principles of equity and the Specific Relief Act, determining that perpetual injunction was necessary since monetary compensation would not adequately protect the petitioner's agricultural interests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RCS No. 35/2017 Court Decision: The court granted the petitioner (Bhagawatiben) a declaration of title and perpetual injunction protecting her ownership and possession of agricultural land (Survey No. 514/1, Sonippur village, Thasra taluka, Kheda district). The court restrained respondents from interfering with the petitioner's cultivation rights and ordered them to bear case costs. Key Reasoning: The court found that the petitioner established her legal ownership and direct possession of the disputed land through registered sale deed (dated 09/09/2005) and continuous cultivation. Respondents failed to produce credible evidence challenging these claims or proving their alleged ownership rights. The court applied principles of equity and the Specific Relief Act, determining that perpetual injunction was necessary since monetary compensation would not adequately protect the petitioner's agricultural interests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Taluka Court, Galteshwar All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case