JAYABEN BIPINBHAI HAPALIYA vs VALJIBHAI KARSHANBHAI HAPALIYA Advocate - D G SAKHIYA — 20/2024

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 31,38,39,. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 04th May 2026.

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJMR050006582024

HEARING

Next Hearing

04th May 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

20/2024

Filing Date

10-05-2024

Registration No

20/2024

Registration Date

10-05-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, TANKARA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C

Acts & Sections

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 Section 31,38,39,

Petitioner(s)

JAYABEN BIPINBHAI HAPALIYA

Adv. P N KUKADIYA

Respondent(s)

VALJIBHAI KARSHANBHAI HAPALIYA Advocate - D G SAKHIYA

MAHESHBHAI VALJIBHAI HAPALIYA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C

13-04-2026

HEARING

09-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

02-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

16-02-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

12-01-2026

DEFENDANT EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

16-04-2025
ORDER

SUMMARY: The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction seeking cancellation of two registered sale deeds and relief regarding disputed land in Village Jivapar, District Morbi. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of joint-possession and coparcenary ownership over the suit lands, relying only on bare assertions without cogent evidence, while the defendants' position was supported by revenue records and registered sale deeds. Since the plaintiff could not satisfy the essential first requirement of proving a prima facie case for granting temporary injunction, the court declined relief without considering balance of convenience or irreparable loss. 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 cancellation of two registered sale deeds and relief regarding disputed land in Village Jivapar, District Morbi. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of joint-possession and coparcenary ownership over the suit lands, relying only on bare assertions without cogent evidence, while the defendants' position was supported by revenue records and registered sale deeds. Since the plaintiff could not satisfy the essential first requirement of proving a prima facie case for granting temporary injunction, the court declined relief without considering balance of convenience or irreparable loss. 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, TANKARA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case