Nadukkandi Meethal Leela vs Kovilodi Mini Advocate - M.P. Sukumaran and M. Bindu — 114/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26 Ord.7, Rule 1. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 30th March 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKK210002652021
Filing Number
235/2021
Filing Date
06-08-2021
Registration No
114/2021
Registration Date
17-08-2021
Court
Munsiff Court,Koyilandy
Judge
1-Munsiff/JFCM-2
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nadukkandi Meethal Leela
Adv. T. Harteesh Kumar
Balakrishnan Nair
Radha
Asokan
Santha
Suresh Kumar
Narayanikutti Amma
Sunil Kumar
Anil Kumar
Respondent(s)
Kovilodi Mini Advocate - M.P. Sukumaran and M. Bindu
Remya Raj
Adv. M.P. Sukumaran and M. Bindu
Reshma Raj
Adv. M.P. Sukumaran and M. Bindu
Ganga Raj
Adv. M.P. Sukumaran and M. Bindu
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff/JFCM-2
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
for evidence
For Further Defence Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 26-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 25-03-2026 | for evidence |
| 24-03-2026 | For Further Defence Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 114/2021 Summary Court Decision: The Munsiff court decreed the partition suit, ordering that two properties be divided equally among all parties—each of the six individual plaintiffs receives 1/8 share; plaintiffs 7-9 jointly receive 1/8 share; and defendants 1-4 jointly receive 1/8 share. The court rejected the defendants' counter-claim for additional property rights based on alleged oral agreements and unproven monetary contributions. Key Reasoning: The court found that defendants failed to substantiate their claims that a deceased family member agreed to transfer additional property to them in exchange for construction expenses or gold ornaments. The defendants could not prove an oral agreement to transfer the gifted 5-cent property without written evidence or satisfactory proof, and mediation settlement claims lacked documentary support. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 114/2021 Summary Court Decision: The Munsiff court decreed the partition suit, ordering that two properties be divided equally among all parties—each of the six individual plaintiffs receives 1/8 share; plaintiffs 7-9 jointly receive 1/8 share; and defendants 1-4 jointly receive 1/8 share. The court rejected the defendants' counter-claim for additional property rights based on alleged oral agreements and unproven monetary contributions. Key Reasoning: The court found that defendants failed to substantiate their claims that a deceased family member agreed to transfer additional property to them in exchange for construction expenses or gold ornaments. The defendants could not prove an oral agreement to transfer the gifted 5-cent property without written evidence or satisfactory proof, and mediation settlement claims lacked documentary support. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts