MAHMAD AMIN MIMANAJI BADI vs IDRISH HASAN VALIBHAI BHALARA Advocate - S.V.PARASARA — 43/2018
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 39,34. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 30th March 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJMR040002982018
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
43/2018
Filing Date
22-02-2018
Registration No
43/2018
Registration Date
22-02-2018
Court
TALUKA COURT, WANKANER
Judge
3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MAHMAD AMIN MIMANAJI BADI
Adv. H.M.SHETH
ABDULBHAI AMINBHAI BADI
Respondent(s)
IDRISH HASAN VALIBHAI BHALARA Advocate - S.V.PARASARA
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. CJM
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 23-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 20-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 10-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 27-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration and perpetual injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from using an internal path through their agricultural land in Tithalwa village, Morbi district. The court found that the defendant had established a customary right of way through the sale deed of 1977, which explicitly mentioned that the land's access route passes through Amarsар's boundary via the plaintiff's field, and the defendant has been using this path for decades without objection. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the internal road belonged exclusively to them or that the defendant had no right to use it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration and perpetual injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from using an internal path through their agricultural land in Tithalwa village, Morbi district. The court found that the defendant had established a customary right of way through the sale deed of 1977, which explicitly mentioned that the land's access route passes through Amarsар's boundary via the plaintiff's field, and the defendant has been using this path for decades without objection. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the internal road belonged exclusively to them or that the defendant had no right to use it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts