Sarala vs Sankaran M B Advocate - Manoj N S — 456/2025
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 26,7. Status: Written Statement. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLTR230008882025
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
Filing Number
1164/2025
Filing Date
24-11-2025
Registration No
456/2025
Registration Date
25-11-2025
Court
Munsiff Court, Wadakkanchery
Judge
1-Munsiff, Wadakkanchery
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sarala
Adv. Radhika.M
Respondent(s)
Sankaran M B Advocate - Manoj N S
Rajan K
Adv. Manoj N S
Sreedevi
Adv. Manoj N S
Anish
Adv. Manoj N S
Sushama
Adv. Manoj N S
Hariharan
Adv. Manoj N S
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff, Wadakkanchery
Written Statement
Written Statement
Orders in IA
For hearing on IA
Issue summons to defendants. For return of Summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Written Statement |
| 16-12-2025 | Written Statement |
| 15-12-2025 | Orders in IA |
| 12-12-2025 | For hearing on IA |
| 25-11-2025 | Issue summons to defendants. For return of Summons |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Sarala v. Sankaran M B Advocate & Others (OS 456/2025) Outcome: Plaintiff Sarala's application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the Court of Munsiff, Wadakanchery on December 15, 2025. The court found insufficient prima facie case, noting defects in pleadings (lack of fundamental requirements for adverse possession claim), weak documentary evidence (possession certificate from 1993, tax receipts ending 2018), non-joinder of the temple as defendant despite plaintiff's admission it is the actual owner, and failure to prove current possession. The balance of convenience favored defendants as a temple festival (Niramala ceremony) was scheduled. No costs imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Sarala v. Sankaran M B Advocate & Others (OS 456/2025) Outcome: Plaintiff Sarala's application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the Court of Munsiff, Wadakanchery on December 15, 2025. The court found insufficient prima facie case, noting defects in pleadings (lack of fundamental requirements for adverse possession claim), weak documentary evidence (possession certificate from 1993, tax receipts ending 2018), non-joinder of the temple as defendant despite plaintiff's admission it is the actual owner, and failure to prove current possession. The balance of convenience favored defendants as a temple festival (Niramala ceremony) was scheduled. No costs imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts