Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS No. 387/2011

Case between M M James vs M M Mathew et al regarding Execution Petition

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Judge
Smt.Jyothi Babu R.
Order Date
2025-08-22
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves M M James as the Decree Holder and M M Mathew and others as Judgment Debtors concerning the execution of a decree. The court reviewed the Execution Petition and closed the matter.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court has pronounced delivery and closed the Execution Petition.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Delivery effected.
Case Type
Execution Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court has pronounced delivery and closed the Execution Petition.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The decree holder was represented and delivery was completed as ordered.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The decree holder was represented and delivery was completed as ordered.
Supporting Evidence
Decree Holder represented. Delivery effected.

Judgment Evidence:

O R D E R Delivery effected. Execution Petition is closed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
M M James
Party Age
65
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
M M Mathew
Party Age
73
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Mary M M
Party Age
69
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Annakutty
Party Age
74
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Simi Thomas
Party Age
44
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Bismi Thomas
Party Age
38
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Power of Attorney, Will
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Josekutty Mathew
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Execution Petition is closed with delivery effected.
Evidence:
Delivery effected. Execution Petition is closed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was presented as evidence by the Decree Holder.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Will
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was presented as evidence by the Decree Holder.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Witnesses were examined for the Decree Holder as part of the proceedings.
Reference:

Case Classification

Case Type
Execution Petition
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between M M James vs M M Mathew et al regarding Execution Petition
Case Code Year
Case between M M James vs M M Mathew et al regarding Execution Petition

Quick Facts

Location
Kottayam
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Fri, 08/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 10/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Balakrishan V vs Sigs Tech Marketing Pvt Ltd et al regarding Execution Petition
Munsiff's Court, Kottayam
Execution Petition Defendant Won
Case between Rajeevan N vs Sigs Tech Marketing Pvt. Ltd. et al regarding Execution Petition
Munsiff Court
Execution Petition Defendant Won
Case between Reshmitha M vs Sigs Tech Marketing Pvt Ltd et al regarding Execution Petition
Court of the Munsiff, Kottayam
Execution Petition Defendant Won
Case between Chandrasekharan P vs Sigs Tech Marketing Pvt Ltd et al regarding execution petition.
Court of the Munsiff, Kottayam
Execution Petition Defendant Won
Case between Chandrasekharan P vs Sigs Tech Marketing Pvt Ltd et al regarding Execution Petition
Principal Munsiff's Court
Execution Petition Defendant Won