Shivlal vs Gopilal — 24/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O39R1,2CPC151CPC. Disposed: Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing on 07th April 2026.
Civil Misc. Connected (41) - CIVIL MISC (C)
CNR: RJMR160000482020
Filing Number
48/2020
Filing Date
05-08-2020
Registration No
24/2020
Registration Date
05-08-2020
Court
ACJM Degana Taluka HQ civil
Judge
1-Add. Sr. Civil Judge and ACJM,Degana
Decision Date
07th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shivlal
Adv. Sahdev Prasad Swami
Respondent(s)
Gopilal
Santosh
Munni
Shimala
Durgali
Tehsildar
Up Panjiyan Adhikari
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Add. Sr. Civil Judge and ACJM,Degana
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-04-2026 | Final arguments |
| 02-04-2026 | Final arguments |
| 28-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 24/2020 - Shivlal v. Gopilal and Others The court granted Shivlal's petition under CPC Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and Section 151, establishing that Shivlal holds a 1/5 share in disputed agricultural land as an adopted son. The court found that respondent Gopilal's unregistered sale deed dated 11.06.2020 to respondent Durguli was void and unauthorized, as Gopilal had no right to sell the entire property without Shivlal's consent. The court issued an interim injunction restraining all respondents from further transferring, selling, or encumbering the disputed land pending final resolution of the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 24/2020 - Shivlal v. Gopilal and Others The court granted Shivlal's petition under CPC Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and Section 151, establishing that Shivlal holds a 1/5 share in disputed agricultural land as an adopted son. The court found that respondent Gopilal's unregistered sale deed dated 11.06.2020 to respondent Durguli was void and unauthorized, as Gopilal had no right to sell the entire property without Shivlal's consent. The court issued an interim injunction restraining all respondents from further transferring, selling, or encumbering the disputed land pending final resolution of the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts