Justin Jeba Raj vs Jebalall Advocate - S. SUNIL — 35/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKK170000502025
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
Filing Number
57/2025
Filing Date
29-04-2025
Registration No
35/2025
Registration Date
29-04-2025
Court
District Munsif Court, Eraniel
Judge
1-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Justin Jeba Raj
Adv. A. PRAVEEN
Justin Jobakumar
Adv. A. PRAVEEN
Justin Jeba Albin
Adv. A. PRAVEEN
Irin Jiji
Adv. A. PRAVEEN
Respondent(s)
Jebalall Advocate - S. SUNIL
Irine Jeba Joselin @ Irin John
Adv. S. SUNIL
Reshma M. Mathew
Adv. S. SUNIL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
Evidence
Evidence
Trial
Trial
Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 20-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 15-04-2026 | Trial |
| 06-04-2026 | Trial |
| 28-03-2026 | Issues |
Interim Orders
This is a cross-examination transcript from Original Suit No. 35/2025 in the District Munsif Court, Eraniel, dated 29.04.2026. The document records the defendant's cross-examination statements regarding property ownership (Thavas), inheritance rights, medical expenses, and a power of attorney allegedly executed by the second defendant who is claimed to lack mental capacity. The case appears to involve disputes over property transfer and the validity of documents, but no final judgment or order is rendered in this document—it only records the cross-examination testimony without a concluded outcome. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a cross-examination transcript from Original Suit No. 35/2025 in the District Munsif Court, Eraniel, dated 29.04.2026. The document records the defendant's cross-examination statements regarding property ownership (Thavas), inheritance rights, medical expenses, and a power of attorney allegedly executed by the second defendant who is claimed to lack mental capacity. The case appears to involve disputes over property transfer and the validity of documents, but no final judgment or order is rendered in this document—it only records the cross-examination testimony without a concluded outcome. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts