Joseph vs Lincy Thomas Advocate - K KARJET — 100132/2009

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26,7,1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 23rd March 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLKT170000072009

Case disposed

Filing Number

100132/2009

Filing Date

09-06-2009

Registration No

100132/2009

Registration Date

09-06-2009

Court

Munsiff Court Kanjirappally

Judge

1-MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26,7,1
Ia/1/2026 Classification : Petition Section JosephLincy Thomas

Petitioner(s)

Joseph

Adv. George Kurian

Lusikkutty

Adv. George Kurian

Respondent(s)

Lincy Thomas Advocate - K KARJET

Shellin Thomas (Minor)

Adv. K KARJET

Mary Thomas

Adv. K KARJET

Nazeer B. Ismail (Addl. 4th defendant)

Adv. A K Kuriakose

Hearing History

Judge: 1-MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY

23-03-2026

Disposed

21-03-2026

With Connected Case

19-03-2026

Order/Judgement

17-03-2026

For Hearing

16-03-2026

Call On

Final Orders / Judgements

23-03-2026
Judgement
23-03-2026
Judgement

Summary of Case 100132/2009 Court Decision: The Munsiff court dismissed both O.S. 154/2006 (injunction suit with counterclaim) and O.S. 132/2009 (possession and eviction suit) due to plaintiffs' failure to establish clear title and precise property boundaries through documentary and possession evidence. The court found that crucial identifying details of the disputed properties could not be determined despite extensive documentary evidence, rendering the suits unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

05-08-2017
Order
02-08-2021
Order
casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 100132/2009 Court Decision: The Munsiff court dismissed both O.S. 154/2006 (injunction suit with counterclaim) and O.S. 132/2009 (possession and eviction suit) due to plaintiffs' failure to establish clear title and precise property boundaries through documentary and possession evidence. The court found that crucial identifying details of the disputed properties could not be determined despite extensive documentary evidence, rendering the suits unmaintainable. 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

Munsiff Court Kanjirappally All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case