N.Radha vs Kannappan @ Verranan ambalam and 4 others Advocate - Mr. Mohanasundaram( D1,D — 127/2019

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(d),27(C). Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSV150002622019

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

Next Hearing

06th June 2026

Filing Number

131/2019

Filing Date

07-08-2018

Registration No

127/2019

Registration Date

07-08-2018

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam

Judge

1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate , Tiruppuvanam

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(d),27(C)

Petitioner(s)

N.Radha

Adv. Tr.SN.Maheswaran,B.A.,B.L.,

Respondent(s)

Kannappan @ Verranan ambalam and 4 others Advocate - Mr. Mohanasundaram( D1,D

, Mr. Sridharan D2,D3,D

Pal

Angel

Rani

Dr.Castro

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate , Tiruppuvanam

29-04-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

18-04-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

16-04-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

07-04-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

02-04-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

Interim Orders

25-10-2025
IA order
25-10-2025
IA order

Case Summary: 127/2019 - N. Radha v. Kannappan @ Verranan Ambalam & Others Outcome: Petition dismissed. The court rejected the petitioner's application seeking to appoint Vallanad as guardian for the minor girl Varshika (also known as Mahisha), affirming the existing guardianship of Rama under GWOP No.1/2018. Key Issue: Whether Vallanad should be appointed as guardian for the minor Varshika in place of the existing guardian Rama, following the death of the original petitioner's father (Kannappan). Court's Reasoning: The District Court upheld the High Court's decision (dated 08.04.2025) finding that disturbing the established guardianship arrangement would be detrimental to the child's best interests. The court noted Rama's dedication to the minor's welfare, education, and upbringing, contrasting with Vallanad's remarriage and inability to provide equivalent care. The petition was found to contradict the High Court's judgment and constituted gross abuse of court process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 127/2019 - N. Radha v. Kannappan @ Verranan Ambalam & Others Outcome: Petition dismissed. The court rejected the petitioner's application seeking to appoint Vallanad as guardian for the minor girl Varshika (also known as Mahisha), affirming the existing guardianship of Rama under GWOP No.1/2018. Key Issue: Whether Vallanad should be appointed as guardian for the minor Varshika in place of the existing guardian Rama, following the death of the original petitioner's father (Kannappan). Court's Reasoning: The District Court upheld the High Court's decision (dated 08.04.2025) finding that disturbing the established guardianship arrangement would be detrimental to the child's best interests. The court noted Rama's dedication to the minor's welfare, education, and upbringing, contrasting with Vallanad's remarriage and inability to provide equivalent care. The petition was found to contradict the High Court's judgment and constituted gross abuse of court process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case