HITESHBHAI LAVJIBHAI KAKDIYA vs LALJIBHAI LAVJIBHAI KAKDIYA Advocate - P A RAVAL — 122/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34,38. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 18th May 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJBT030007492021
Filing Number
122/2021
Filing Date
05-06-2021
Registration No
122/2021
Registration Date
05-06-2021
Court
TALUKA COURT, GADHADA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
18th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
HITESHBHAI LAVJIBHAI KAKDIYA
Adv. S C THAKAR
Respondent(s)
LALJIBHAI LAVJIBHAI KAKDIYA Advocate - P A RAVAL
AMRSHIBHAI LAVJIBHAI KAKADIYA
Adv. K J PANCHOLI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-05-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 02-05-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 28-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 23-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 122/2021 The Principal Civil Court of Gadhada rejected the plaintiff's suit seeking declaration and possession of agricultural land and partition rights. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his claim that jointly-held land should be divided equally among three brothers. Key deficiencies included: plaintiff's evidence regarding family settlement arrangements was contradicted by contradictory documentary evidence; respondents' counterclaims regarding prior land sales and possession were reasonably supported; and the plaintiff failed to overcome the burden of proof required in partition cases. The court dismissed the suit with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 122/2021 The Principal Civil Court of Gadhada rejected the plaintiff's suit seeking declaration and possession of agricultural land and partition rights. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his claim that jointly-held land should be divided equally among three brothers. Key deficiencies included: plaintiff's evidence regarding family settlement arrangements was contradicted by contradictory documentary evidence; respondents' counterclaims regarding prior land sales and possession were reasonably supported; and the plaintiff failed to overcome the burden of proof required in partition cases. The court dismissed the suit with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts