MILIBEN D/O MAULESHBHAI GOPALDAS KANSAGARA vs GOPALDAS PUNJABHAI KANASAGARA Advocate - R C NADPARA — 4/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
SPCS - SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJJN100002272025
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
4/2025
Filing Date
19-03-2025
Registration No
4/2025
Registration Date
19-03-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, VANTHALI
Judge
2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MILIBEN D/O MAULESHBHAI GOPALDAS KANSAGARA
Adv. V U VADAR
Respondent(s)
GOPALDAS PUNJABHAI KANASAGARA Advocate - R C NADPARA
Hearing History
Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 18-03-2026 | ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION |
| 11-03-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION |
| 11-02-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION |
| 28-01-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION |
Interim Orders
Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the defendant (her grandfather) from transferring ancestral joint family property. While the court found the plaintiff had a prima facie case as a coparcener, it held that she failed to demonstrate irreparable loss or that balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, noting the defendant showed no actual intent to sell and citing Supreme Court precedent prohibiting blanket injunctions on joint Hindu family property absent waste or ouster. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the defendant (her grandfather) from transferring ancestral joint family property. While the court found the plaintiff had a prima facie case as a coparcener, it held that she failed to demonstrate irreparable loss or that balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, noting the defendant showed no actual intent to sell and citing Supreme Court precedent prohibiting blanket injunctions on joint Hindu family property absent waste or ouster. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts