Sadanandan P.A. vs Vijayamma P.A. — 200001/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O.7,R.1 and O.33,R.1, r/w S.26. Status: For Enquiry. Next hearing: 19th May 2026.

OP(Indigent) - ORIGINAL PETITION (INDIGENT)

CNR: KLER250001022025

For Enquiry

Next Hearing

19th May 2026

e-Filing Number

21-02-2025

Filing Number

112/2025

Filing Date

21-02-2025

Registration No

200001/2025

Registration Date

21-02-2025

Court

Munsiff Court, Kochi

Judge

1-Prl.Munsiff Kochi

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code Section O.7,R.1 and O.33,R.1, r/w S.26

Petitioner(s)

Sadanandan P.A.

Adv. VinodKumar M.M

Respondent(s)

Vijayamma P.A.

Suku P.A.

Adv. SERIN

Dharmavally P.A.

Adv. SERIN

Rajan P.A.

Adv. SERIN

Chandramathy

Adv. SERIN

Balachandran P.A.

Adv. SERIN

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Prl.Munsiff Kochi

10-03-2026

For Enquiry

07-02-2026

For Enquiry

01-01-2026

For Enquiry

24-11-2025

For Enquiry

18-11-2025

Call with IA

Interim Orders

24-11-2025
Final Order

Summary: The petition for interim injunction filed by Sadanandan P.A. has been dismissed. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for cancellation of Settlement Deed No. 194/2012 or for restraining the respondent (6th defendant) from alienating the disputed 10-cent property. The court noted that the petitioner made allegations of forgery and the mother's incapacity to execute the deed but produced no documentary evidence to support these claims. The respondent's evidence of a 1991 Will superseding the 1990 Will was found credible, under which the respondent had already acquired rights to the property through the settlement deed. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs to the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The petition for interim injunction filed by Sadanandan P.A. has been dismissed. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for cancellation of Settlement Deed No. 194/2012 or for restraining the respondent (6th defendant) from alienating the disputed 10-cent property. The court noted that the petitioner made allegations of forgery and the mother's incapacity to execute the deed but produced no documentary evidence to support these claims. The respondent's evidence of a 1991 Will superseding the 1990 Will was found credible, under which the respondent had already acquired rights to the property through the settlement deed. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs to the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Munsiff Court, Kochi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case