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

PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE

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

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34

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

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

15-04-2026
ORDER
15-04-2026
ORDER

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, VANTHALI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case