Abiraham Thobiyas vs Vinu Kumar — 88/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 25th April 2026.

Case disposed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNKK080000962024

Filing Number

111/2024

Filing Date

07-Jun-2024

Registration No

88/2024

Registration Date

19-Sep-2024

Court

Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram

Judge

3-Additional District Munsif

Decision Date

25-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 19-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Abiraham Thobiyas

    Adv. P. Johnsilin Saviourraj

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Vinu Kumar

  2. 2.parameswari

    Adv. Adv. Sundar R. Sajeev

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, having issued a legal notice 20 months after the agreement date and 9 months after the contractual deadline. Additionally, the court determined the agreement was primarily for a loan transaction (Rs. 90,000) rather than a genuine property sale, and rejected the suit due to the plaintiff's fraudulent insertion of alternative relief claims in the pleadings without court authorization. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Additional District Munsif

  4. 18-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Additional District Munsif

  5. 17-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Additional District Munsif

  6. 08-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Additional District Munsif

  7. 24-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Additional District Munsif

  8. 11-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Additional District Munsif

  9. 03-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Additional District Munsif

  10. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  11. 05-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  12. 23-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  13. 07-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  14. 11-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  15. 28-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  16. 19-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  17. 06-Nov-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  18. 06-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  19. 31-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  20. 16-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  21. 24-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  22. 10-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  23. 22-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  24. 05-Aug-2025

    Trial

    Additional District Munsif

  25. 17-Jul-2025

    Trial

    Additional District Munsif

  26. 03-Jul-2025

    Issues

    Additional District Munsif

  27. 09-Jun-2025

    Await Reports

    Additional District Munsif

  28. 23-Apr-2025

    Await Reports

    Additional District Munsif

  29. 25-Mar-2025

    Mediation

    Additional District Munsif

  30. 13-Feb-2025

    Written Statement

    Additional District Munsif

  31. 09-Jan-2025

    Written Statement

    Additional District Munsif

  32. 12-Dec-2024

    Written Statement

    Additional District Munsif

  33. 27-Nov-2024

    Written Statement

    Additional District Munsif

  34. 21-Oct-2024

    Written Statement

    Additional District Munsif

  35. 19-Sep-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  36. 07-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 88/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, having issued a legal notice 20 months after the agreement date and 9 months after the contractual deadline. Additionally, the court determined the agreement was primarily for a loan transaction (Rs. 90,000) rather than a genuine property sale, and rejected the suit due to the plaintiff's fraudulent insertion of alternative relief claims in the pleadings without court authorization. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case