Gujarat High Court
Pushpaben @Bebiben Manishbhai Parmar vs Chanchalben Hiralal Vyas on 20 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3950/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3950 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3950 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
PUSHPABEN @BEBIBEN MANISHBHAI PARMAR
Versus
CHANCHALBEN HIRALAL VYAS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
P M BUCH(7383) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 20/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award
passed by the Learned City Civil Court (Commercial Court),
Ahmedabad, dated 05.05.2025 in Civil Suit No.1505 of 2007,
whereby the suit filed by the present appellant - plaintiff came to
be dismissed claiming the permanent injunction against the
defendant - original owner of the property. The father of the
plaintiff, namely, Ambaram Becharda was the tenant of the suit
property, who died 29.01.1984, leaving behind two sons and one
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3950/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
daughter, i.e., present appellant. The marriage of the plaintiff
was solemnized in the year 1996; she was staying her the in-laws
at Nanji Master-ni-Chali, Khanpur. Two brothers remained
unmarried and died on 19.06.2003 and on 10.01.2007
respectively. The daughter born from the wedlock of the plaintiff
in the year 2001, wherein the birth certificate address is
mentioned of Nanji Master-ni-Chali, Khanpur. Claiming the right
on the suit property being a tenant under Section 5(11)(c) of the
Bombay Rent Act, the suit came to be filed for permanent
injunction, which came to be dismissed by the learned Court on
the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish legal rights in
the suit property, which is subject matter of challenge before this
Court.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Buch for the appellant
3. Learned advocate Mr. Buch submits that to establish the
claim, the present appellant - plaintiff has produced the election
card below Exh.87 wherein the name is stated at Serial No.357
and the address is mentioned of the suit property. Learned
advocate Buch submits that upon the death of the brother, the
plaintiff became the unlawful tenant of the suit property.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3950/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
However, without considering the same, the learned Court had
dismissed the suit, and therefore, impugned judgment deserves
to be quashed and set aside and the appeal is required to be
allowed.
4. Having considered the arguments of learned advocate Mr.
Buch for the appellant original plaintiff and on referring to the
records including the judgment passed by the learned Civil Court,
it emerges that on the death of the father, who is the tenant, the
brothers and the plaintiff's sister were staying in the suit
property. The plaintiff's marriage was solemnized in the year
1996, and she shifted at her in-laws' house, which is situated at
Nanji Master-ni-Chali, Khanpur, Ahmedabad. The brothers were
staying in the suit property who also were unmarried and died on
date 19.06.2003 and on 10.01.2007 respectively. Except the
election card which is produced below Exh.48, which was also
before her marriage wherein the address is mentioned of the suit
property. No other documentary evidences were placed on
record. Additionally, as per the Exh.89, which is the birth
certificate issued by the Corporation, the child born out of the
wedlock on 06.11.2001, and the address is stated of Nanji Master-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3950/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
ni-Chali, Khanpur. Claiming the right under Section 5(11)(c), which
was admittedly after more than six months from the date of the
death of the brother, the suit came to be filed. The learned
advocate Mr. Buch is unable to point out any error in the
judgment passed by the learned Civil Court in dismissing the suit,
and in that background, the appeal deserves to be dismissed
being devoid of merit.
5. Resultantly, the present appeal is rejected.
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In view of the order passed in the main matter, the
connected civil application does not survive and the same stands
disposed of accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
