Santhosh Oommen alias Santhosh P Oommen Rep by POA Holder Mohanan Pillai R vs Salomy Thomas Advocate - JAISON JOHN — 100024/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26,7. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED WITH COST. on 18th March 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLAL280002832024
e-Filing Number
28-09-2024
Filing Number
100197/2024
Filing Date
30-09-2024
Registration No
100024/2024
Registration Date
30-09-2024
Court
Sub Court, Chengannur
Judge
1-Sub Judge and Asst.Sessions Judge, Chengannur
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED WITH COST.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Santhosh Oommen alias Santhosh P Oommen Rep by POA Holder Mohanan Pillai R
Adv. KOSHY THOMAS
Respondent(s)
Salomy Thomas Advocate - JAISON JOHN
Thomas Joboy Philip
Adv. JAISON JOHN
Lillykutty E M
Adv. Noel Dani Charles
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge and Asst.Sessions Judge, Chengannur
Disposed
Order/Judgement
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 17-03-2026 | Order/Judgement | |
| 16-03-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 13-03-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 12-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Sub Judge, Chengannur dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking cancellation of settlement deeds, partition, and injunction against his sister and brother-in-law. The court found that the 3rd defendant (mother) had absolute ownership of the property transferred to the 1st defendant under Deed 809/2015, and the 1st and 3rd defendants validly transferred only their 2/3rd share to the plaintiff under Deed 2314/2015, not exceeding their rights as legal heirs. The court rejected the plaintiff's claims due to inconsistencies in evidence, his acceptance of the property despite challenging the deeds' validity, and improper framing of relief without sufficient court fee. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Sub Judge, Chengannur dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking cancellation of settlement deeds, partition, and injunction against his sister and brother-in-law. The court found that the 3rd defendant (mother) had absolute ownership of the property transferred to the 1st defendant under Deed 809/2015, and the 1st and 3rd defendants validly transferred only their 2/3rd share to the plaintiff under Deed 2314/2015, not exceeding their rights as legal heirs. The court rejected the plaintiff's claims due to inconsistencies in evidence, his acceptance of the property despite challenging the deeds' validity, and improper framing of relief without sufficient court fee. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts