Kuttappan vs P K Krishnankutty Advocate - M Jayalal — 300123/2010

Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section section26Order7Rule1. Status: For Hearing. Next hearing: 22nd May 2026.

For Hearing Next hearing 22-May-2026

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLER510000102010

Filing Number

300123/2010

Filing Date

19-Mar-2010

Registration No

300123/2010

Registration Date

19-Mar-2010

Court

Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha

Judge

1-Munsiff

Last updated 30-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section section26Order7Rule1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Kuttappan

    Adv. Abraham Joseph

  2. 2.A K Prasad

    Adv. Abraham Joseph

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.P K Krishnankutty Advocate - M Jayalal

  2. 2.Addl. D2 - Bhavani

    Adv. Jayalal M,HAFSA K M

  3. 3.Addl D3 - Rajesh

    Adv. Jayalal M,HAFSA K M

  4. 4.Addl. D4 - Suresh

    Adv. Jayalal M,HAFSA K M

  5. 5.Addl. D5 - Ratheesh

    Adv. Jayalal M,HAFSA K M

  6. 6.Addl. D6 - Remya

    Adv. Jayalal M,HAFSA K M

  7. 7.Addl. D7 - Satheesh

    Adv. Jayalal M,HAFSA K M

Case History

  1. 22-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  3. 23-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  4. 12-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  5. 29-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  6. 17-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  7. 08-Dec-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  8. 30-Oct-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  9. 29-Sep-2025

    Call on

    Munsiff

  10. 16-Sep-2025

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  11. 25-Aug-2025

    for evidence.

    Munsiff

  12. 22-Aug-2025

    for evidence.

    Munsiff

  13. 19-Aug-2025

    Further evidence

    Munsiff

  14. 02-Aug-2025

    For return of summons

    Munsiff

  15. 24-Jun-2025

    Further evidence

    Munsiff

  16. 22-May-2025

    Further evidence

    Munsiff

  17. 27-Mar-2025

    Further evidence

    Munsiff

  18. 05-Mar-2025

    for evidence.

    Munsiff

  19. 04-Feb-2025

    for evidence.

    Munsiff

  20. 23-Jan-2025

    for evidence.

    Munsiff

  21. 17-Jan-2025

    for evidence.

    Munsiff

  22. 18-Dec-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  23. 25-Nov-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  24. 29-Oct-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  25. 10-Oct-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  26. 05-Sep-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  27. 14-Aug-2024

    for evidence.

    Munsiff

  28. 23-Jul-2024

    for evidence.

    Munsiff

  29. 22-Jun-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  30. 11-Apr-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff

  31. 15-Mar-2024

    Return of notice

    Munsiff

  32. 01-Mar-2024

    For Steps

    Munsiff

  33. 28-Feb-2024

    For evidence

    Munsiff

  34. 02-Feb-2024

    Report on mediation

    Munsiff

  35. 20-Jan-2024

    Report on mediation

    Munsiff

  36. 08-Jan-2024

    Report on mediation

    Munsiff

  37. 02-Dec-2023

    Trial in the list

    Munsiff

  38. 17-Oct-2023

    For Steps

    Munsiff

  39. 25-Aug-2023

    For Steps

    Munsiff

  40. 02-Aug-2023

    Steps if any

    Munsiff

  41. 14-Jul-2023

    Steps if any

    Munsiff

  42. 14-Jun-2023

    Steps if any

    Munsiff

  43. 01-Jun-2023

    Steps if any

    Munsiff

  44. 20-Mar-2023

    Restored

    Munsiff

  45. 20-Mar-2023

    For Admission

    Munsiff

  46. 20-Mar-2023

    Steps if any

    Munsiff

  47. 20-Aug-2019

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary: The suit for declaration of title, boundary fixation, and permanent prohibitory injunction was dismissed with costs. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove valid legal title to the disputed 42-cent property, as both parties claimed rights through the same predecessor (Ayyappan) but via conflicting succession chains—the plaintiffs through their father Kunjan and the defendant through his mother Kochukutty. Since title was not established and no demarcating boundary existed, the court also rejected claims for boundary fixation and injunctive relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  48. 20-Aug-2019

    Disposed

    Munsiff

  49. 23-Jul-2019

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff

  50. 04-Jul-2019

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff

  51. 29-Jun-2019

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  52. 27-Jun-2019

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  53. 21-Jun-2019

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  54. 11-Jun-2019

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  55. 07-Jun-2019

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  56. 01-Jun-2019

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  57. 27-May-2019

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  58. 10-Apr-2019

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  59. 08-Apr-2019

    For Hearing

    Munsiff

  60. 19-Mar-2019

    Defence Evidence

    Munsiff

  61. 14-Mar-2019

    Defence Evidence

    Munsiff

  62. 26-Feb-2019

    Return of summons

    Munsiff

  63. 20-Feb-2019

    For commission report

    Munsiff

  64. 11-Feb-2019

    For commission report

    Munsiff

  65. 22-Jan-2019

    Restored

    Munsiff

  66. 06-Jun-2018

    JudgementView PDF

  67. 06-Jun-2018

    Disposed

    Munsiff

  68. 04-Jun-2018

    Listed to

    Munsiff

  69. 17-Feb-2018

    Listed to

    Munsiff

  70. 15-Jan-2018

    Listed to

    Munsiff

  71. 08-Dec-2017

    Listed to

    Munsiff

  72. 16-Oct-2017

    Listed to

    Munsiff

  73. 07-Aug-2017

    Listed to

    Munsiff

  74. 31-May-2017

    Listed to

    Munsiff

  75. 31-Mar-2017

    For Steps

    Munsiff

  76. 21-Feb-2017

    For commission report

    Munsiff

  77. 16-Jan-2017

    For commission report

    Munsiff

  78. 02-Dec-2016

    For commission report

    Munsiff

  79. 07-Oct-2016

    For commission report

    Munsiff

  80. 10-Aug-2016

    No sitting notified

    Munsiff

  81. 12-Jul-2016

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  82. 19-Mar-2010

    Case filed

    Registration No. 300123/2010

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The suit for declaration of title, boundary fixation, and permanent prohibitory injunction was dismissed with costs. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove valid legal title to the disputed 42-cent property, as both parties claimed rights through the same predecessor (Ayyappan) but via conflicting succession chains—the plaintiffs through their father Kunjan and the defendant through his mother Kochukutty. Since title was not established and no demarcating boundary existed, the court also rejected claims for boundary fixation and injunctive relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case