Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.1062/2019

Case between Ambika.C vs Padmakumar regarding realisation of money

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Judge
Smt.Sreelakshmi. C
Order Date
2025-09-29
Duration
approximately-6 years 22 days
Case Code No.
1062
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Ambika.C and K.Dinesh filed a suit against Padmakumar and Vinod, seeking to appoint Padmakumar as the guardian of Vinod due to his alleged mental incapacity. The court found that Vinod was capable of contesting the case for himself.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the application for appointing a guardian for Vinod, concluding that he is mentally fit to represent himself in the case.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the application for appointing a guardian for Vinod, concluding that he is mentally fit to represent himself in the case.
Key Reasoning:
The court found that Vinod is capable of protecting his own interests and is not mentally infirm.
Why Defendant Won:
The court found that Vinod is capable of protecting his own interests and is not mentally infirm.
Supporting Evidence
It is very much evident that he is capable of protecting his interest and therefore does not require guardian to be appointed to protect his interest.

Judgment Evidence:

Therefore, as the 2nd defendant is capable of protecting his own interest and hence I.A.9923/2019 is liable to be dismissed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Ambika.C
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
K.Dinesh
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Padmakumar
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Vinod (A Person of Unsound mind)
Relation
Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.V.S.Bhasurendran Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The plaintiff's application to appoint the 1st defendant as the guardian of the 2nd defendant.
Evidence:
Therefore, as the 2nd defendant is capable of protecting his own interest and hence I.A.9923/2019 is liable to be dismissed.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2019

Quick Facts

Location
Thiruvananthapuram
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Tue, 01/01/2019 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Mon, 09/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Tue, 09/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Union Bank of India et al vs Midhun. M regarding rejection of plaint
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Purushothaman Pillay Divakaran et al vs Deepti Sivan regarding injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sreenath.S vs Thankarajan et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sindhu.S et al vs Lalitha et al regarding withdrawal of suit
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Vanitha Sureshbabu Thilak vs Babu Chettiyar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won