SOMAJI GOVINDJI JADEJA vs MOHANBA JASAJI SODHA Advocate - M R HARSH — 30/2017
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38,39. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 25th March 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKT070004742017
Filing Number
30/2017
Filing Date
25-09-2017
Registration No
30/2017
Registration Date
25-09-2017
Court
TALUKA COURT, NAKHATRANA
Judge
4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SOMAJI GOVINDJI JADEJA
Adv. V R GADHVI
Respondent(s)
MOHANBA JASAJI SODHA Advocate - M R HARSH
SURUBHA JASAJI SODHA
Adv. M R HARSH
KARUBHA JASAJI SODHA
Adv. M R HARSH
CHANDUBHA JASAJI SODHA
Adv. M R HARSH
MADHUBHA RAGAJI DARBAR
Hearing History
Judge: 4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 26-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 21-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 07-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court allowed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land in Bibar village. The court found that due to a typographical error, Revenue Survey No. 564/2 was incorrectly written as 563 in the sale deeds, and declared the plaintiff as the true owner and occupier of Survey Nos. 564/1 and 564/2. The defendants were permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and ordered to execute a corrected amendment sale deed within two months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court allowed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land in Bibar village. The court found that due to a typographical error, Revenue Survey No. 564/2 was incorrectly written as 563 in the sale deeds, and declared the plaintiff as the true owner and occupier of Survey Nos. 564/1 and 564/2. The defendants were permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and ordered to execute a corrected amendment sale deed within two months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts