Kamalakshi vs Thankamma Advocate - G Santhosh Kumar — 300365/2005
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section OrderVIIrule1sec.26. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 04th April 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLER420000022005
Filing Number
300365/2005
Filing Date
30-11-2005
Registration No
300365/2005
Registration Date
30-11-2005
Court
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Judge
1-Munsiff Perumbavoor
Decision Date
04th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kamalakshi
Adv. M K Jayapalan, M K Jayapalan
Respondent(s)
Thankamma Advocate - G Santhosh Kumar
Saradha
Adv. G Santhosh Kumar
Sobhana
Adv. M G Jayachandran
Radhamani
Adv. M G Jayachandran
Ramesan
Ajitha
Mallika
Adv. B Reghukumar,GEORGE MATHEW
Ponnamma
Adv. P Joseph Sebastian,SANTHOSH V K SAHEERA K.A
Jayanandan
Adv. P T Geevarghese
Sivarajan
Adv. P T Geevarghese
Sukumaran
Adv. P T Geevarghese
Vijayan
Adv. M G Jayachandran
Gopalan
Narayanan
Sasidharan
Ravi
Parameswaran
Dharmapalan
Indira
Dileepkumar
Chandrika
Sudhev
Thulasi
Prasad
Sobhana
Sandeep
Sandya
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff Perumbavoor
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/Judgement
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 31-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 23-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 12-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Interim Orders
Summary The Munsiff's Court dismissed Kamalakshi's suit as not maintainable under CPC Order 21 Rules 97-103, holding that she should have filed a petition before the execution court rather than a separate suit to challenge the earlier partition decree (O.S.No.210/94) and property delivery. The court clarified that even third parties claiming independent rights over decretal property must approach the execution court through prescribed procedural remedies, not through fresh civil suits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Munsiff's Court dismissed Kamalakshi's suit as not maintainable under CPC Order 21 Rules 97-103, holding that she should have filed a petition before the execution court rather than a separate suit to challenge the earlier partition decree (O.S.No.210/94) and property delivery. The court clarified that even third parties claiming independent rights over decretal property must approach the execution court through prescribed procedural remedies, not through fresh civil suits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts