Generally, no — property disputes involving genuine factual controversy typically cannot be decided solely on the basis of affidavits, since Indian civil procedure strongly favours the right to lead oral evidence and cross-examine witnesses in ordinary civil suits, particularly where title, possession, or the validity of documents is genuinely contested. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the standard process for a civil suit involves framing of issues, followed by recording of oral evidence through examination-in-chief and cross-examination of witnesses under Order 18, and courts are generally reluctant to bypass this process in favour of deciding a genuinely disputed property matter purely on written affidavits, since cross-examination is considered essential to testing the credibility and reliability of evidence.

However, affidavits do play a significant role at various interlocutory stages of property litigation — applications for temporary injunctions under Order 39 CPC, applications for appointment of a Receiver under Order 40 CPC, or applications for Commissioner appointment under Order 26 CPC are typically supported and decided based on affidavit evidence, since these are interim matters not requiring the full rigour of a trial, though courts can still direct cross-examination on affidavits in appropriate cases where genuine factual disputes exist even at the interim stage.

In summary suits or specific statutory proceedings — such as an application under Order 37 CPC for summary judgment in certain categories of cases, or specific tribunal proceedings that follow their own procedural rules — affidavit evidence may carry greater weight and could potentially be more determinative, but even in many of these contexts, if the opposing party raises a genuine, triable issue on affidavit, courts generally allow the matter to proceed to full trial with oral evidence rather than deciding it summarily.

Where parties mutually agree, or where a court, exercising discretion in appropriate circumstances, permits evidence to be led by affidavit under Order 19 CPC (subject to the opposing party's right to require cross-examination of the deponent), this can streamline certain uncontested or narrow factual matters, but this remains the exception rather than the rule for genuinely contested title or possession disputes.

Given how much the appropriate procedure depends on the specific nature and stage of your property case, understanding when affidavit evidence suffices versus when full oral evidence and cross-examination are required is important. For representation before Ahmedabad's courts, the Top Property Lawyers in Ahmedabad | Aapka Legal Advice directory can connect you with suitable counsel, and the team at Aapka Legal Advice can guide you on the right evidentiary strategy.

In conclusion, no, a genuinely contested property case generally cannot be decided solely on affidavit evidence in Ahmedabad — full trial with oral evidence and cross-examination under Order 18 CPC remains the standard process, though affidavits play an important role at interim stages such as injunction and Commissioner applications.