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.

For Enquiry Next hearing 19-May-2026 this date has passed

OP(Indigent) - ORIGINAL PETITION (INDIGENT)

CNR: KLER250001022025

e-Filing Number

21-02-2025

Filing Number

112/2025

Filing Date

21-Feb-2025

Registration No

200001/2025

Registration Date

21-Feb-2025

Court

Munsiff Court, Kochi

Judge

1-Prl.Munsiff Kochi

Last updated 30-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sadanandan P.A.

    Adv. VinodKumar M.M

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Vijayamma P.A.

  2. 2.Suku P.A.

    Adv. SERIN

  3. 3.Dharmavally P.A.

    Adv. SERIN

  4. 4.Rajan P.A.

    Adv. SERIN

  5. 5.Chandramathy

    Adv. SERIN

  6. 6.Balachandran P.A.

    Adv. SERIN

Case History

  1. 19-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    For Enquiry

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  3. 07-Feb-2026

    For Enquiry

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  4. 01-Jan-2026

    For Enquiry

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  5. 24-Nov-2025

    Final OrderView PDF

    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.

  6. 24-Nov-2025

    For Enquiry

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  7. 18-Nov-2025

    Call with IA

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  8. 15-Nov-2025

    Call with IA

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  9. 31-Oct-2025

    Call with IA

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  10. 13-Oct-2025

    Call with IA

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  11. 04-Oct-2025

    Call with IA

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  12. 29-Sep-2025

    Call with IA

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  13. 16-Sep-2025

    Call with IA

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  14. 22-Aug-2025

    Call with IA

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  15. 18-Aug-2025

    Call with IA

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  16. 12-Aug-2025

    Call with IA

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  17. 29-Jul-2025

    Call with IA

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  18. 17-Jul-2025

    Call with IA

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  19. 28-Jun-2025

    Call with IA

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  20. 31-May-2025

    For Counter

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  21. 29-Mar-2025

    For Counter

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  22. 21-Mar-2025

    Call with IA

    Prl.Munsiff Kochi

  23. 21-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 21-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 200001/2025

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case