UNNIKKUTTAN vs RAMAKRISHNA GUPTHAN Advocate - NANDAGOPAL.P — 200323/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26, O7, R1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th April 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLPK130005512018
Filing Number
209/2018
Filing Date
29-10-2018
Registration No
200323/2018
Registration Date
29-10-2018
Court
Munsiff Court, Ottappalam
Judge
1-Munsiff
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
UNNIKKUTTAN
Adv. K.R.Kochunarayanan
Respondent(s)
RAMAKRISHNA GUPTHAN Advocate - NANDAGOPAL.P
RUKMINI AMMAL
Adv. Sujith M
RADHA
Adv. Sujith M
VILASINI
Adv. Sujith M
HARIDASAN
Adv. Sujith M
RATHNAVATHY
Adv. Sujith M
KUMARI
Adv. Sujith M
VALSALA
Adv. Sujith M
THANKAMANI
Adv. Sujith M
RADHA
Adv. Sujith M
Rajeev
Adv. NANDAGOPAL.P
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-04-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 06-04-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 31-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 27-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 200323/2018 The Munsiff Court dismissed Unnikuttan's partition suit against Ramakrishna Gupthan and others, finding it barred by *res judicata*. The court determined that three of the four properties claimed were identical to properties in an earlier 1995 partition suit (O.S. 41/1991) where the court had already found Ramakrishna Gupthan the exclusive owner by adverse possession. The plaintiff attempted to circumvent this final judgment by falsely claiming his grandmother originally owned the properties and by describing them with altered descriptions based on revenue record errors. The plaintiff must pay defendants' costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 200323/2018 The Munsiff Court dismissed Unnikuttan's partition suit against Ramakrishna Gupthan and others, finding it barred by *res judicata*. The court determined that three of the four properties claimed were identical to properties in an earlier 1995 partition suit (O.S. 41/1991) where the court had already found Ramakrishna Gupthan the exclusive owner by adverse possession. The plaintiff attempted to circumvent this final judgment by falsely claiming his grandmother originally owned the properties and by describing them with altered descriptions based on revenue record errors. The plaintiff must pay defendants' 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