Sarasamma vs Kamalasan Advocate - George Joseph Kakkanadu — 200214/2011
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26O7R1. Status: For Commission Report. Next hearing: 09th July 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKT110000762011
Next Hearing
09th July 2026
Filing Number
200214/2011
Filing Date
04-10-2011
Registration No
200214/2011
Registration Date
04-10-2011
Court
Munsiff Court, Pala
Judge
1-MUNSIFF PALA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sarasamma
Adv. V.G. Venugopal
Respondent(s)
Kamalasan Advocate - George Joseph Kakkanadu
Omana
Adv. -do-
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MUNSIFF PALA
For Commission Report
For Commission Report
For Commission Report
For Reports
Letter to Tahasildar
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-05-2026 | For Commission Report |
| 16-03-2026 | For Commission Report |
| 13-02-2026 | For Commission Report |
| 24-01-2026 | For Reports |
| 06-01-2026 | Letter to Tahasildar |
Interim Orders
CASE SUMMARY: O.S. No. 214/2011 - Sarasamma v. Kamalasan & Omana The Court dismissed both the plaintiff's suit and the defendants' counterclaim due to failure to establish clear property boundaries. Plaintiff Sarasamma sought boundary fixation and injunction against neighboring defendants, claiming they destroyed the physical boundary separating their properties. Defendants filed a counterclaim asserting title to disputed land. The Munsiff found that neither party could properly identify their properties without measurements based on old survey records, which were unavailable. Accordingly, the Court ruled that boundary fixation was impossible and neither party proved valid title, dismissing all relief prayers without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY: O.S. No. 214/2011 - Sarasamma v. Kamalasan & Omana The Court dismissed both the plaintiff's suit and the defendants' counterclaim due to failure to establish clear property boundaries. Plaintiff Sarasamma sought boundary fixation and injunction against neighboring defendants, claiming they destroyed the physical boundary separating their properties. Defendants filed a counterclaim asserting title to disputed land. The Munsiff found that neither party could properly identify their properties without measurements based on old survey records, which were unavailable. Accordingly, the Court ruled that boundary fixation was impossible and neither party proved valid title, dismissing all relief prayers without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts