RAMESH URFE KANO RAIYABHAI SHIYAL vs MEHBUB ISMAILBHAI BHARMAL Advocate - M K PARMAR — 33/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 30th March 2026.
RCA - REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL
CNR: GJMR010010502023
Filing Number
33/2023
Filing Date
27-Apr-2023
Registration No
33/2023
Registration Date
27-Apr-2023
Court
DISTRICT COURT,MORBI
Judge
1-2nd Addl District Judge
Decision Date
30-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAMESH URFE KANO RAIYABHAI SHIYAL
Adv. D V KUNDARIYA
Respondent(s)
-
1.MEHBUB ISMAILBHAI BHARMAL Advocate - M K PARMAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Mar-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: Civil Appeal No. 33/2023 Decision: The appellate court dismissed the defendant's appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the plaintiff's right to the disputed property and granting permanent injunction against the defendant's encroachment. Key Facts: The plaintiff, a registered owner of 1,054 sq. ft. of open land in Trajpar, Morbi (purchased via deed in 2008), sued the defendant for tying cattle and placing fodder on the property without permission. The defendant contested the suit claiming he was not in possession and raising defenses of delay, laches, and insufficient court fees. Court's Reasoning: The appellate court found the trial court's findings were properly based on evidence, including the registered sale deed, plaintiff's testimony, police complaint, and a court-ordered panchnama (inspection report) showing cattle and fodder on the property. The defendant failed to provide contradictory evidence or testify for cross-examination, justifying adverse inferences against him. The court upheld that a declaration and injunction suit was maintainable despite no explicit possession recovery prayer, as the plaintiff held legal possession through registered ownership. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Mar-2026
Disposed
2nd Addl District Judge
-
25-Mar-2026
Judgement
2nd Addl District Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
Judgement
2nd Addl District Judge
-
27-Feb-2026
Hearing
2nd Addl District Judge
-
13-Feb-2026
Hearing
2nd Addl District Judge
-
29-Dec-2025
Hearing
2nd Addl District Judge
-
14-Nov-2025
Hearing
2nd Addl District Judge
-
25-Sep-2025
Hearing
2nd Addl District Judge
-
25-Aug-2025
Notice To Respondents
2nd Addl District Judge
-
24-Jul-2025
Notice To Respondents
2nd Addl District Judge
-
24-Jun-2025
Notice To Respondents
2nd Addl District Judge
-
03-Apr-2025
Notice To Respondents
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
05-Feb-2025
Notice To Respondents
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
23-Dec-2024
Notice To Respondents
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
21-Nov-2024
Notice To Respondents
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
04-Oct-2024
Notice To Respondents
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
14-Aug-2024
Notice To Respondents
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
28-Jun-2024
Notice To Respondents
2nd Addl District Judge
-
30-Apr-2024
Notice To Respondents
2nd Addl District Judge
-
04-Apr-2024
Notice To Respondents
2nd Addl District Judge
-
20-Feb-2024
Notice To Respondents
2nd Addl District Judge
-
26-Dec-2023
Notice To Respondents
2nd Addl District Judge
-
07-Nov-2023
Notice To Respondents
2nd Addl District Judge
-
06-Oct-2023
Notice To Respondents
2nd Addl District Judge
-
02-Aug-2023
Notice To Respondents
2nd Addl District Judge
-
08-Jun-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
27-Apr-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 33/2023
Case Summary: Civil Appeal No. 33/2023 Decision: The appellate court dismissed the defendant's appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the plaintiff's right to the disputed property and granting permanent injunction against the defendant's encroachment. Key Facts: The plaintiff, a registered owner of 1,054 sq. ft. of open land in Trajpar, Morbi (purchased via deed in 2008), sued the defendant for tying cattle and placing fodder on the property without permission. The defendant contested the suit claiming he was not in possession and raising defenses of delay, laches, and insufficient court fees. Court's Reasoning: The appellate court found the trial court's findings were properly based on evidence, including the registered sale deed, plaintiff's testimony, police complaint, and a court-ordered panchnama (inspection report) showing cattle and fodder on the property. The defendant failed to provide contradictory evidence or testify for cross-examination, justifying adverse inferences against him. The court upheld that a declaration and injunction suit was maintainable despite no explicit possession recovery prayer, as the plaintiff held legal possession through registered ownership. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts