Radhika Balachandran vs Sindhu T Advocate - A K Kuriakose — 100315/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Disposed: Uncontested--DECREED WITH COST on 30th March 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKT170007522023
Filing Number
100547/2023
Filing Date
09-11-2023
Registration No
100315/2023
Registration Date
09-11-2023
Court
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Judge
1-MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DECREED WITH COST
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Radhika Balachandran
Adv. GIRISH S NAIR
Respondent(s)
Sindhu T Advocate - A K Kuriakose
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Disposed
For Hearing
Call On
Return of Notice
Listed to
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-03-2026 | For Hearing |
| 16-03-2026 | Call On |
| 03-03-2026 | Return of Notice |
| 20-01-2026 | Listed to |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: O.S. 315/2023 Court Decision: The Munsiff court granted a partial decree in favor of Radhika Balachandran. The court issued a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant Sindhu T. from trespassing into the plaintiff's property (a room used for business) and obstructing the plaintiff's peaceful possession. The plaintiff was also awarded suit costs against the defendant. Key Reasoning: The court found that the plaintiff had clear title and ownership of the property through a valid sale deed, while the defendant was merely a licensee who had defaulted on monthly rent payments and vacated the property on 31 July 2023. The defendant's removal of all movables from the premises meant the plaintiff's apprehension of potential future trespass was reasonable and justified the injunction, though a mandatory injunction was denied since all disputed movables had already been removed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. 315/2023 Court Decision: The Munsiff court granted a partial decree in favor of Radhika Balachandran. The court issued a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant Sindhu T. from trespassing into the plaintiff's property (a room used for business) and obstructing the plaintiff's peaceful possession. The plaintiff was also awarded suit costs against the defendant. Key Reasoning: The court found that the plaintiff had clear title and ownership of the property through a valid sale deed, while the defendant was merely a licensee who had defaulted on monthly rent payments and vacated the property on 31 July 2023. The defendant's removal of all movables from the premises meant the plaintiff's apprehension of potential future trespass was reasonable and justified the injunction, though a mandatory injunction was denied since all disputed movables had already been removed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts