LAGAL HEIRS PARBATSANG DIPSANG POPATSANG PARBATSANG SOLANKI vs LEGAL HEIRS PARBATSANG DIPSANG MOBATSANG PARBATSANG SOLANKI Advocate - M I JADAV — 11/2026

Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 37,38,39. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJAH120000532026

Filing Number

11/2026

Filing Date

02-Feb-2026

Registration No

11/2026

Registration Date

02-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, MANDAL

Judge

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

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 15-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 37,38,39

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LAGAL HEIRS PARBATSANG DIPSANG POPATSANG PARBATSANG SOLANKI

    Adv. P N VADHER

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.LEGAL HEIRS PARBATSANG DIPSANG MOBATSANG PARBATSANG SOLANKI Advocate - M I JADAV

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The Principal Civil Judge of Mandal, Ahmedabad, decided a property partition case (RCS 11/2026) by approving a settlement agreement reached between the parties. The court ordered that the plaintiff's name be registered as a co-owner with 50% equal share in the disputed property in the revenue record, and granted the relief sought in the petition without objection from the defendant. Court fees were refunded to the plaintiff as per procedure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 02-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 11/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Principal Civil Judge of Mandal, Ahmedabad, decided a property partition case (RCS 11/2026) by approving a settlement agreement reached between the parties. The court ordered that the plaintiff's name be registered as a co-owner with 50% equal share in the disputed property in the revenue record, and granted the relief sought in the petition without objection from the defendant. Court fees were refunded to the plaintiff as per procedure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case