LAKHAMANBHAI RAVJIBHAI KALATHIYA vs BHARATBHAI POPATBHAI KALATHIYA Advocate - K.J.PANCHOLI — 106/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 26th May 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBT030007162021
Filing Number
106/2021
Filing Date
09-04-2021
Registration No
106/2021
Registration Date
09-04-2021
Court
TALUKA COURT, GADHADA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
26th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
LAKHAMANBHAI RAVJIBHAI KALATHIYA
Adv. V.M.KHACHAR
Respondent(s)
BHARATBHAI POPATBHAI KALATHIYA Advocate - K.J.PANCHOLI
ARVINDBHAI POPATBHAI KALATHIYA
Adv. K.J.PANCHOLI
P.G.V.C.L. GADHADA RULAR 2
Adv. D.S.RAVAL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-05-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 30-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 28-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 22-04-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 106/2021 Court: Principal Civil Court, Gadhada Parties: - Petitioner: Lakhamanbhai Ravjibhai Kalathiya - Respondents: Bharatbhai Popatbhai Kalathiya, Arvindbhai Popatbhai Kalathiya, and P.G.V.C.L. Gadhada Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's suit. The petitioner failed to establish ownership of the disputed agricultural land as the evidence and claims regarding an unauthorized encroachment, illegal well construction, and boundary disputes were inadequately proven. The respondents' actions regarding the well and field boundaries were found to lack sufficient legal grounds for the relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.C.S. No. 106/2021 Court: Principal Civil Court, Gadhada Parties: - Petitioner: Lakhamanbhai Ravjibhai Kalathiya - Respondents: Bharatbhai Popatbhai Kalathiya, Arvindbhai Popatbhai Kalathiya, and P.G.V.C.L. Gadhada Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's suit. The petitioner failed to establish ownership of the disputed agricultural land as the evidence and claims regarding an unauthorized encroachment, illegal well construction, and boundary disputes were inadequately proven. The respondents' actions regarding the well and field boundaries were found to lack sufficient legal grounds for the relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts