One of the chief times of peril in Lavanaprasáda's reign was the joint attack of the Devagiri Yádava Singhana or Sinhana from the south and of four Márwár chiefs from the north. Lavanaprasáda and his son Víradhavala in joint command marched south to meet Singhana at Broach. While at Broach the Vághelás' position was made still more critical by the desertion of the Godhraha or Godhrá chief to Málwa and of the Láta or south Gujarát chief to Singhana. Still Lavanaprasáda pressed on, attacked Singhana, and gave him so crushing a defeat, that, though Lavanaprasáda had almost at once to turn north to meet the Málwa army, Singhana retired without causing further trouble. [645] Somesvara gives no reason for Singhana's withdrawal beyond the remark 'Deer do not follow the lion's path even when the lion has left it.' The true reason is supplied by a Manuscript called Forms of Treaties. [646] The details of a treaty between Sinhana and Lavanaprasáda under date Samvat 1288 (A.D. 1232) included among the Forms seem to show that the reason why Sinhana did not advance was that Lavanaprasáda and his son submitted and concluded an alliance. [647] In this copy of the treaty Sinhanadeva is called the great king of kings or paramount sovereign Mahárájádhirája, while Lavanaprasáda, Sanskritised into Lavanyáprasáda is called a Rána and a tributary chief Mahámandalesvara. The place where the treaty was concluded is styled "the victorious camp," and the date is Monday the fullmoon of Vaisákha in the year Samvat 1288 (A.D. 1232). The provisions are that, as before, each of the belligerents should confine himself to his own territory; neither of them should invade the possessions of the other; if a powerful enemy attacked either of them, they should jointly oppose him; if only a hostile general led the attack, troops should be sent against him; and if from the country of either any noble fled into the territory of the other taking with him anything of value he should not be allowed harbourage and all valuables in the refugee's possession should be restored. [648] His good fortune went with Lavanaprasáda in his attack on the Márwár chiefs whom he forced to retire. Meanwhile Sankha [649] who is described as the son of the ruler of Sindh but who seems to have held territory in Broach, raised a claim to Cambay and promised Vastupála Lavanaprasáda's governor, that, if Vastupála declared in his favour [650], he would be continued in his government. Vastupála rejected Sankha's overtures, met him in battle outside of Cambay, and forced him to retire. In honour of Vastupála's victory the people of Cambay held a great festival when Vastupála passed in state through the city to the shrine of the goddess Ekalla Víra outside of the town. [651]