Krishnan (Died) vs Syamala Advocate - V.Murugadas — 300226/2014
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26O7R1. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 16th March 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLPK210003142014
Filing Number
300782/2014
Filing Date
22-05-2014
Registration No
300226/2014
Registration Date
23-05-2014
Court
Munsiff Court, Chittur
Judge
1-Munsiff
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Krishnan (Died)
Adv. M.Saseendran
Meenakshi (Supplemental)
Adv. P. Govindanunni
Danesh (Supplemental)
Adv. P. Govindanunni
Mahesh (Supplemental)
Adv. P. Govindanunni
Nisha. A.K (Supplemental)
Adv. P. Govindanunni
Respondent(s)
Syamala Advocate - V.Murugadas
Chandran
Adv. MOHANDAS
Divya
Adv. MOHANDAS
Dhanya
Adv. MOHANDAS
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
Disposed
Order/Judgement
Order/ Judgement
Order/Judgement
For further hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 12-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 05-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 03-03-2026 | For further hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 300226/2014 The Munsiff court partly decreed an eviction suit, finding that plaintiff Krishnan had proven title to the disputed property and that defendant Syamala occupied it as a licensee (permissive occupant) rather than as a rightful owner. The court rejected the defendant's claims based on an allegedly forged 1976 will and an unproven oral partition, noting suspicious circumstances in the will's preparation and the defendant's own admission that the plaintiff permitted her residence. The court ordered defendants to vacate within two months and remove their shed at their own expense, but disallowed the claim for mesne profits due to insufficient pleadings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 300226/2014 The Munsiff court partly decreed an eviction suit, finding that plaintiff Krishnan had proven title to the disputed property and that defendant Syamala occupied it as a licensee (permissive occupant) rather than as a rightful owner. The court rejected the defendant's claims based on an allegedly forged 1976 will and an unproven oral partition, noting suspicious circumstances in the will's preparation and the defendant's own admission that the plaintiff permitted her residence. The court ordered defendants to vacate within two months and remove their shed at their own expense, but disallowed the claim for mesne profits due to insufficient pleadings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts