KESHAV DEVRAJ GADHAVI vs SANGHAR LAKHU VELJI@LAKHA VELA SANGHAR Advocate - K P KAGTADA — 17/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 5,6,34,38. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 08th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKT040002672021
Filing Number
17/2021
Filing Date
08-02-2021
Registration No
17/2021
Registration Date
08-02-2021
Court
TALUKA COURT, MANDVI
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
08th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KESHAV DEVRAJ GADHAVI
Adv. A J GOSWAMI
Respondent(s)
SANGHAR LAKHU VELJI@LAKHA VELA SANGHAR Advocate - K P KAGTADA
SANGHAR VELJI BUDHA
Adv. K P KAGTADA
DEDHIYA PALLAVI POPAT CHANA W/O TALAKCHAND MORARJI
Adv. K P KAGTADA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 02-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 18-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 11-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 05-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit regarding a disputed property in Mandvi, Gujarat. The court found that the defendants (family members named Bachcha/Rajmal Pala's heirs) had legitimately obtained the property through valid power of attorney documents and sales deeds, and that the plaintiff failed to prove clear ownership or possession rights over the contested land. The court also ruled that the plaintiff's claim was barred by time limitations and that no evidence supported allegations of fraud or unauthorized transfers against the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit regarding a disputed property in Mandvi, Gujarat. The court found that the defendants (family members named Bachcha/Rajmal Pala's heirs) had legitimately obtained the property through valid power of attorney documents and sales deeds, and that the plaintiff failed to prove clear ownership or possession rights over the contested land. The court also ruled that the plaintiff's claim was barred by time limitations and that no evidence supported allegations of fraud or unauthorized transfers against the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts