CHANDUBHAI MANGALBHAI SODHA vs CHHOTABHAI PUNABHAI SODHA Advocate - Y V THAKOR — 42/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 13th March 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKH090014952019
Filing Number
42/2019
Filing Date
30-11-2019
Registration No
42/2019
Registration Date
30-11-2019
Court
TALUKA COURT, MAHUDHA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
CHANDUBHAI MANGALBHAI SODHA
Adv. N.B.CHAUHAN
CHANCHALBEN MANGALBHAI SODHA
ISHVARBHAI MANGALBHAI SODHA
LAXMANBHAI MANGALBHAI SODHA
DAHYABHAI MANGALBHAI SODHA
VAJABHAI MANGALBHAI SODHA
Respondent(s)
CHHOTABHAI PUNABHAI SODHA Advocate - Y V THAKOR
ABHESINH PUNABHAI SODHA
MANGALBHAI BUDHABHAI SODHA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 26-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 17-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 16-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CHANDUBHAI MANGALBHAI SODHA v. CHHOTABHAI PUNABHAI SODHA (RCS 42/2019) The court declared the Plaintiffs as lawful owners of disputed agricultural land in Village Minawada, Kheda District, and permanently restrained the Defendants from interfering with their possession. The court found that the Plaintiffs' predecessor legitimately acquired the land through tenancy proceedings by paying Rs. 2,000, with documentary evidence (Entry No. 1422) supporting their ownership, while the Defendants failed to produce any credible evidence of co-ownership or contribution to the purchase price. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CHANDUBHAI MANGALBHAI SODHA v. CHHOTABHAI PUNABHAI SODHA (RCS 42/2019) The court declared the Plaintiffs as lawful owners of disputed agricultural land in Village Minawada, Kheda District, and permanently restrained the Defendants from interfering with their possession. The court found that the Plaintiffs' predecessor legitimately acquired the land through tenancy proceedings by paying Rs. 2,000, with documentary evidence (Entry No. 1422) supporting their ownership, while the Defendants failed to produce any credible evidence of co-ownership or contribution to the purchase price. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts