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
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
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
For Enquiry
For Enquiry
For Enquiry
For Enquiry
Call with IA
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts