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
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
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
Disposed
Order/Judgement
Order/Judgement
For Hearing
For Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts