Vidyarthadayini Sabha vs Chandran — 100727/2020
Case under Ia/1/2026 Classification : Application to Receive Documents Section Vidyarthadayini Sabha. Disposed: Contested--DECREED WITH COST on 12th March 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLTR190019272020
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
100727/2020
Filing Date
11-08-2020
Registration No
100727/2020
Registration Date
11-08-2020
Court
Munsiffcourt, Kodungallur
Judge
1-MUNSIFF KODUNGALLUR
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED WITH COST
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vidyarthadayini Sabha
Adv. K.G.Sajith
Respondent(s)
Chandran
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MUNSIFF KODUNGALLUR
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
Order/Judgement
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 11-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement | |
| 04-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement | |
| 28-02-2026 | Order/ Judgement | |
| 21-02-2026 | Order/Judgement |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Munsiff Court of Kodungallur partially decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of defaulted kuri (rotating savings scheme) installments. The court found the kuri agreement dated 7.7.2012 to be valid and genuine, rejecting the defendant's denial of signatures as mere assertion without substantive proof. The plaintiff was awarded Rs. 1,13,448 with 12% interest from suit date until decree, then 6% thereafter, but only for 34 installments falling within the three-year limitation period, and the claim for an equitable mortgage charge on defendant's property was rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The Munsiff Court of Kodungallur partially decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of defaulted kuri (rotating savings scheme) installments. The court found the kuri agreement dated 7.7.2012 to be valid and genuine, rejecting the defendant's denial of signatures as mere assertion without substantive proof. The plaintiff was awarded Rs. 1,13,448 with 12% interest from suit date until decree, then 6% thereafter, but only for 34 installments falling within the three-year limitation period, and the claim for an equitable mortgage charge on defendant's property was rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts