Urvashiben Mukundrai Vyas vs Pranlal Gordhandas Raiththa Advocate - N D KAKKAD — 291/2022

Case under Succession Act,indian 1925 Section 272. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJPB020068942022

Filing Number

291/2022

Filing Date

16-Dec-2022

Registration No

291/2022

Registration Date

16-Dec-2022

Court

CIVIL COURT PORBANDAR

Judge

2-Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 15-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Succession Act,indian 1925 Section 272

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Urvashiben Mukundrai Vyas

    Adv. M P POSTARIA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Pranlal Gordhandas Raiththa Advocate - N D KAKKAD

  2. 2.Dinesh Vithaldas Raiththa

    Adv. N D KAKKAD

  3. 3.Atulkumar Maganlal Raiththa

    Adv. N D KAKKAD

  4. 4.Girish R. Raiththa

    Adv. N D KAKKAD

  5. 5.Sandip V. Raiththa

    Adv. N D KAKKAD

  6. 6.Rameshbhai Naranbhai Raiththa

    Adv. N D KAKKAD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary The court dismissed the applicant's suit challenging the validity of a will dated 18/07/1980. The judge found that the applicant failed to establish legal standing (locus standi) to contest the will, lacked necessary parties to the case, and could not prove the will was invalid or that they had enforceable rights over the deceased's property. The judgment upheld the registered will's validity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  4. 02-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  8. 12-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  9. 22-Jan-2026

    Defendant Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  10. 08-Jan-2026

    Defendant Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  11. 18-Dec-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  12. 20-Nov-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  13. 30-Oct-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  14. 25-Sep-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  15. 29-Aug-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  16. 07-Aug-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  17. 03-Jul-2025

    Defendant Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  18. 10-Jun-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  19. 30-Apr-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  20. 17-Mar-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  21. 21-Feb-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  22. 23-Jan-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  23. 26-Dec-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  24. 26-Nov-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  25. 15-Oct-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  26. 17-Sep-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  27. 28-Aug-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  28. 06-Aug-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  29. 11-Jul-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  30. 14-Jun-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  31. 04-May-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  32. 20-Apr-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  33. 20-Mar-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  34. 06-Mar-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  35. 05-Feb-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  36. 03-Jan-2024

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  37. 01-Dec-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  38. 08-Nov-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  39. 06-Oct-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  40. 25-Aug-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  41. 14-Jul-2023

    Plaintiff Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  42. 07-Jun-2023

    Issues

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  43. 26-Apr-2023

    Issues

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  44. 29-Mar-2023

    Issues

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  45. 28-Feb-2023

    Process To Opponent

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  46. 31-Jan-2023

    Process To Opponent

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  47. 06-Jan-2023

    Process To Opponent

    2nd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  48. 16-Dec-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  49. 16-Dec-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 291/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court dismissed the applicant's suit challenging the validity of a will dated 18/07/1980. The judge found that the applicant failed to establish legal standing (locus standi) to contest the will, lacked necessary parties to the case, and could not prove the will was invalid or that they had enforceable rights over the deceased's property. The judgment upheld the registered will's validity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case