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.

Hearing Next hearing 04-May-2026 this date has passed

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJMR050006582024

Filing Number

20/2024

Filing Date

10-May-2024

Registration No

20/2024

Registration Date

10-May-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, TANKARA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 31,38,39

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JAYABEN BIPINBHAI HAPALIYA

    Adv. P N KUKADIYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VALJIBHAI KARSHANBHAI HAPALIYA Advocate - D G SAKHIYA

  2. 2.MAHESHBHAI VALJIBHAI HAPALIYA

Case History

  1. 04-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 13-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  4. 02-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  5. 16-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  6. 12-Jan-2026

    Defendant Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  7. 17-Dec-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  8. 01-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  9. 15-Oct-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  10. 10-Sep-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  11. 13-Aug-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  12. 09-Jul-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  13. 11-Jun-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  14. 16-Apr-2025

    OrderView PDF

    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.

  15. 16-Apr-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  16. 10-Mar-2025

    Order On Injuction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  17. 17-Feb-2025

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  18. 03-Feb-2025

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  19. 06-Jan-2025

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  20. 09-Dec-2024

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  21. 18-Nov-2024

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  22. 09-Oct-2024

    Hearing On Injunction Application

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  23. 28-Aug-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  24. 24-Jul-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge And J.M.F.C

  25. 19-Jun-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 10-May-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 20/2024

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case