Geogy Joseph vs Sini Jiji Advocate - K.Madhavan Pillai — 42/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order XLIII Rule 1 (r),Section 104. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 24th April 2026.

CMA - CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL

CNR: KLKT010026932025

Case disposed

Filing Number

622/2025

Filing Date

04-08-2025

Registration No

42/2025

Registration Date

14-08-2025

Court

Principal District & Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

Decision Date

24th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section Order XLIII Rule 1 (r),Section 104
IA/1/2025 Classification :

Petitioner(s)

Geogy Joseph

Adv. AGI JOSEPH

K C Thomas

Adv. AGI JOSEPH

Respondent(s)

Sini Jiji Advocate - K.Madhavan Pillai

Jiji George Joseph

Adv. K.Madhavan Pillai

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

24-04-2026

Disposed

16-04-2026

Order/Judgement

31-03-2026

Order/Judgement

30-03-2026

For Hearing

27-03-2026

For Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

24-04-2026
Judgement

Summary of Case 42/2025 The District Court reversed the trial court's temporary injunction protecting a woman from eviction, finding she lacked a prima facie case and had likely gained unlawful entry post-litigation. The court held that the building was solely owned by the defendant under a prior settlement deed, which the plaintiff's husband had never contested in an earlier partition suit—making her subsequent competing claim untenable. The court ordered the plaintiff and her children to vacate the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 42/2025 The District Court reversed the trial court's temporary injunction protecting a woman from eviction, finding she lacked a prima facie case and had likely gained unlawful entry post-litigation. The court held that the building was solely owned by the defendant under a prior settlement deed, which the plaintiff's husband had never contested in an earlier partition suit—making her subsequent competing claim untenable. The court ordered the plaintiff and her children to vacate the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Principal District & Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case