Sasidharan vs Radha Advocate - Asha.S.Menon — 304015/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7Rule1. Status: FOR HEARING. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLTR140044602015
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Number
317512/2015
Filing Date
28-10-2015
Registration No
304015/2015
Registration Date
28-10-2015
Court
Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda
Judge
1-Principal Munsiff
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sasidharan
Adv. K. Gopinathan
Jayaprakash
Respondent(s)
Radha Advocate - Asha.S.Menon
Binoj
Neena
Naina
Smitha
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal Munsiff
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
Call on
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-06-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 10-04-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 08-04-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 25-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 16-03-2026 | Call on |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 304015/2015 Outcome: Petition dismissed. The plaintiffs (Sasidharan and Jayaprakash) challenged a Commissioner's report on property measurements in a property dispute with defendants (Radha, Binoj, Neena, Naina, and Smitha). The plaintiffs argued the Commissioner measured property based only on physical possession rather than title deeds. The court found the Commissioner's report valid, noting that while side measurements weren't specified in title deeds, clear physical boundaries (old trees marking the perimeter) and a distinct 1.5-Kol-wide pathway properly identified the defendant's property. The court held that plaintiffs cannot claim more than the 1.5-wide pathway already identified and plotted, dismissing the petition as devoid of merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 304015/2015 Outcome: Petition dismissed. The plaintiffs (Sasidharan and Jayaprakash) challenged a Commissioner's report on property measurements in a property dispute with defendants (Radha, Binoj, Neena, Naina, and Smitha). The plaintiffs argued the Commissioner measured property based only on physical possession rather than title deeds. The court found the Commissioner's report valid, noting that while side measurements weren't specified in title deeds, clear physical boundaries (old trees marking the perimeter) and a distinct 1.5-Kol-wide pathway properly identified the defendant's property. The court held that plaintiffs cannot claim more than the 1.5-wide pathway already identified and plotted, dismissing the petition as devoid of merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts