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
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
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
HEARING
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts