Sujatha.T.A vs Balamani T.A Advocate - Sajith Kumar S — 73/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: For commission report. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.

For commission report Next hearing 08-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLKN190003452022

Filing Number

276/2022

Filing Date

22-Oct-2022

Registration No

73/2022

Registration Date

26-Oct-2022

Court

Sub Court, Payyannur

Judge

1-Sub Judge

Last updated 25-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sujatha.T.A

    Adv. DINESH GOPALAKRISHNAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Balamani T.A Advocate - Sajith Kumar S

  2. 2.Sulekha.T.A

    Adv. Vijayakumar K

  3. 3.Sunil Kumar T.A

    Adv. Sajith Kumar S

  4. 4.Kavitha.T.A

    Adv. Sajith Kumar S

Case History

  1. 08-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    For commission report

    Sub Judge

  3. 10-Feb-2026

    For commission report

    Sub Judge

  4. 29-Jan-2026

    call on

    Sub Judge

  5. 29-Nov-2025

    Take Steps

    Sub Judge

  6. 25-Nov-2025

    For Order

    Sub Judge

  7. 13-Nov-2025

    For counter

    Sub Judge

  8. 09-Oct-2025

    return of notice

    Sub Judge

  9. 06-Oct-2025

    Disposed

    Sub Judge

  10. 29-Sep-2025

    For Steps

    Sub Judge

  11. 22-Aug-2025

    For Steps

    Sub Judge

  12. 24-May-2025

    For Steps

    Sub Judge

  13. 20-Mar-2025

    For Steps

    Sub Judge

  14. 17-Feb-2025

    For Steps

    Sub Judge

  15. 14-Jan-2025

    For Steps

    Sub Judge

  16. 26-Nov-2024

    JudgementView PDF

    SUMMARY: The Subordinate Judge of Payyannur issued a preliminary decree allowing the partition suit. The court ordered the scheduled property be partitioned into 5 equal shares (1/5th each) among the plaintiff and four defendants by metes and bounds. Additionally, the residential building on the property was allotted to Defendant 2 (Suleksha) based on equitable principles, as she has resided there for 15 years while other co-owners live elsewhere, subject to property valuation at the final decree stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  17. 26-Nov-2024

    Sub Judge

  18. 23-Nov-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Sub Judge

  19. 14-Nov-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Sub Judge

  20. 07-Nov-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Sub Judge

  21. 30-Oct-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Sub Judge

  22. 24-Oct-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Sub Judge

  23. 17-Oct-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Sub Judge

  24. 11-Oct-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Sub Judge

  25. 30-Sep-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Sub Judge

  26. 28-Sep-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Sub Judge

  27. 24-Sep-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Sub Judge

  28. 09-Sep-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Sub Judge

  29. 04-Sep-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Sub Judge

  30. 30-Aug-2024

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge

  31. 29-Aug-2024

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge

  32. 27-Aug-2024

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge

  33. 22-Aug-2024

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge

  34. 21-Aug-2024

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge

  35. 19-Aug-2024

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge

  36. 17-Aug-2024

    For evidence

    Sub Judge

  37. 07-Aug-2024

    For evidence

    Sub Judge

  38. 02-Aug-2024

    Listed To

    Sub Judge

  39. 22-Jun-2024

    Listed To

    Sub Judge

  40. 19-Jun-2024

    Bcf and steps

    Sub Judge

  41. 27-May-2024

    For Issues

    Sub Judge

  42. 26-Mar-2024

    For Report

    Sub Judge

  43. 19-Mar-2024

    Referred to Mediator

    Sub Judge

  44. 27-Nov-2023

    Appearance of Partie

    Sub Judge

  45. 14-Aug-2023

    Written Statement

    Sub Judge

  46. 04-Jan-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  47. 22-Oct-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 73/2022

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: The Subordinate Judge of Payyannur issued a preliminary decree allowing the partition suit. The court ordered the scheduled property be partitioned into 5 equal shares (1/5th each) among the plaintiff and four defendants by metes and bounds. Additionally, the residential building on the property was allotted to Defendant 2 (Suleksha) based on equitable principles, as she has resided there for 15 years while other co-owners live elsewhere, subject to property valuation at the final decree stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case