Vikraman Nair vs Pradeep Kumar Advocate - prasannan — 100042/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O43,R1. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 31st March 2026.
AS - CIVIL APPEAL
CNR: KLKM270003622018
Filing Number
203/2018
Filing Date
27-07-2018
Registration No
100042/2018
Registration Date
28-07-2018
Court
Sub Court Karunagappally
Judge
1-Sub Judge
Decision Date
31st March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vikraman Nair
Adv. Jayakrishnan S.
Santhakumari@Vijayakumari
Respondent(s)
Pradeep Kumar Advocate - prasannan
Lekshmi Vikram
Reshmi Vikram
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge
Disposed
For judgment
For judgment
For judgment
For judgment
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | For judgment |
| 25-03-2026 | For judgment |
| 13-03-2026 | For judgment |
| 28-02-2026 | For judgment |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: AS No. 42/2018 The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that Pradeep Kumar (1st defendant) holds the valid lease to the jewellery shop from Oachira Temple, not Vikraman Nair (plaintiff). The court determined the plaintiff failed to prove independent tenancy rights and was merely assisting the business as a relative, while defendants established their legal claim through a valid lease deed and rent receipts. The suit was dismissed and a mandatory injunction issued directing the plaintiff to vacate within 90 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: AS No. 42/2018 The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that Pradeep Kumar (1st defendant) holds the valid lease to the jewellery shop from Oachira Temple, not Vikraman Nair (plaintiff). The court determined the plaintiff failed to prove independent tenancy rights and was merely assisting the business as a relative, while defendants established their legal claim through a valid lease deed and rent receipts. The suit was dismissed and a mandatory injunction issued directing the plaintiff to vacate within 90 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts