Sulekha vs Geevar — 100180/2014

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7Rule1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 11th March 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLTR170000602014

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1002834/2014

Filing Date

21-01-2014

Registration No

100180/2014

Registration Date

21-01-2014

Court

Munsiff Court, Chavakkad

Judge

1-Munsiff Chavakkad

Decision Date

11th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code Section Order7Rule1
IA/2/2025 Classification : Section SulekhaGeevar
IA/3/2025 Classification : Section SulekhaGeevar
IA/4/2025 Classification : Application To Receive Documents Section SulekhaGeevar
IA/5/2025 Classification : Delay Condonation Application Section SulekhaGeevar
IA/6/2025 Classification : Commission Application Section SulekhaGeevar
IA/1/2026 Classification : Application To Reopen Evidence Section SulekhaGeevar
IA/2/2026 Classification : Petition Section SulekhaGeevar

Petitioner(s)

Sulekha

Adv. K.I.Chacko

Respondent(s)

Geevar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Munsiff Chavakkad

11-03-2026

Disposed

03-03-2026

Order/ Judgement

24-02-2026

Order/ Judgement

19-02-2026

FOR HEARING

11-02-2026

For further hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

11-03-2026
Judgement

Summary: The Munsiff Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction regarding an allegedly encroached property. While the court found the plaintiff had legal title to the disputed property under a 1987 settlement deed (holding the unilateral cancellation by her husband void), it found against her on possession and injunction claims because she failed to establish the exact identity and extent of the encroached portion and provided no convincing evidence of the alleged boundary wall construction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

06-01-2024
Judgement
26-08-2025
Order
casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Munsiff Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction regarding an allegedly encroached property. While the court found the plaintiff had legal title to the disputed property under a 1987 settlement deed (holding the unilateral cancellation by her husband void), it found against her on possession and injunction claims because she failed to establish the exact identity and extent of the encroached portion and provided no convincing evidence of the alleged boundary wall construction. 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, Chavakkad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case