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
Filing Number
1164/2025
Filing Date
24-Nov-2025
Registration No
456/2025
Registration Date
25-Nov-2025
Court
Munsiff Court, Wadakkanchery
Judge
1-Munsiff, Wadakkanchery
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sarala
Adv. Radhika.M
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sankaran M B Advocate - Manoj N S
-
2.Rajan K
Adv. Manoj N S
-
3.Sreedevi
Adv. Manoj N S
-
4.Anish
Adv. Manoj N S
-
5.Sushama
Adv. Manoj N S
-
6.Hariharan
Adv. Manoj N S
Case History
-
24-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
16-Mar-2026
Written Statement
Munsiff, Wadakkanchery
-
16-Dec-2025
Written Statement
Munsiff, Wadakkanchery
-
15-Dec-2025
OrderView PDF
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.
-
15-Dec-2025
Orders in IA
Munsiff, Wadakkanchery
-
12-Dec-2025
For hearing on IA
Munsiff, Wadakkanchery
-
25-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 456/2025
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.
Explore other courts