Niravkumar Khimjibhai Kosiya vs Sushilaben Balvantrai Jadav Advocate - HARSIT SHSH — 24/2020
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 31,34,37,38,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
SPCS - SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJSR030010742020
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
23/2020
Filing Date
10-12-2020
Registration No
24/2020
Registration Date
10-12-2020
Court
TALUKA COURT, OLPAD
Judge
1-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Niravkumar Khimjibhai Kosiya
Adv. B.D.CHALIWALA
Bipinkumar Muktilal Kothari
Kumarpal Kirtilal Kothari
Respondent(s)
Sushilaben Balvantrai Jadav Advocate - HARSIT SHSH
Ravindrakumar Balvantrai Jadav
Shaileshkumar Balvantrai Jadav
Bhupendrakumar Balvantrai Jadav
Kamleshkumar Balvantrai Jadav
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 09-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 05-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 02-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 28-10-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary The petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The court issued a mandatory injunction prohibiting the defendants from transferring, selling, mortgaging, or encumbering the disputed agricultural land in any manner, and directed them to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff for Rs. 23,30,000 as agreed upon in their transaction. The court found the plaintiff's prima facie case to be strong based on documentary evidence including receipts and signed agreements from all defendants, and determined that the defendants had committed breach of faith and fraud by accepting full payment but refusing to deliver the property deed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The court issued a mandatory injunction prohibiting the defendants from transferring, selling, mortgaging, or encumbering the disputed agricultural land in any manner, and directed them to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff for Rs. 23,30,000 as agreed upon in their transaction. The court found the plaintiff's prima facie case to be strong based on documentary evidence including receipts and signed agreements from all defendants, and determined that the defendants had committed breach of faith and fraud by accepting full payment but refusing to deliver the property deed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts