Dear Sir/Madam,

Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances shared by you, it appears that the dispute requires immediate procedural attention as well as an effective strategy for protecting the property pending adjudication. Your concerns primarily relate to the disputed settlement deed allegedly executed in July 2023, the death of your father on 14 August 2025, the continued pendency of the application for bringing his legal heirs on record, the absence of effective interim protection, and the uncertainty surrounding the separate petition filed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

You have further informed me that the disputed property has allegedly been rented out, trees have been cut down, and a land survey has been completed by the opposing family member while the civil proceedings remain pending. You have also expressed concern regarding the lack of clarity from your present advocate concerning the procedural progress of the matter and the utilisation of amounts paid towards notice-related and tribunal-related expenses.

On the basis of the information provided, my preliminary legal opinion and recommendations are as follows.

1. Status of the Civil Suit and Substitution of Legal Heirs

Your father passed away on 14 August 2025. You have stated that an application under Order XXII CPC was filed in August 2025 for bringing the legal heirs on record. The legal heirs residing in the United States signed the vakalatnama in May 2026, which was reportedly received in June 2026. However, the substitution process rema unresolved.

You have also referred to an order-sheet entry dated 12 October 2026 recording that notice issued to the proposed additional plaintiffs was returned because they were unavailable at the given address. The next date of hearing is stated to be 17 December 2026.

Under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where a plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, the legal representatives may be brought on record so that the proceedings can continue. The precise procedure will depend upon the existing pleadings, the status of the application, and whether any order concerning abatement has been passed.

The first and most important step is to establish the actual status of the substitution application from the court record. You have mentioned I.A. No. 3/2025, but have also stated that the legal-heir application was prepared or filed without receiving a clear interlocutory application number. This discrepancy must be resolved by inspecting the filing register, application receipt, defect report, and latest order sheet.

If the application has been filed but remains unnumbered, the reason for non-numbering must be ascertained. It may be due to an office objection, an incomplete filing, a procedural defect, or another issue that cannot be determined without inspecting the record.

The limitation aspect also requires urgent examination. Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963, ordinarily prescribes 90 days for bringing the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff on record. If the application was not made within the prescribed period and abatement has occurred, an application to set aside abatement under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC, together with an application for condonation of delay where required, may be necessary.

Since you state that the application was filed in August 2025, the original filing date, the precise relief sought, and all subsequent orders must be verified before concluding that the proceedings are procedurally protected.

Recommended action

Your advocate should immediately obtain and review the following:

(a) The original application filed under Order XXII CPC, including its filing date and acknowledgement.

(b) The current case-status report and complete order sheets.

(c) Any application number allotted, registry objection, defect memo, or return endorsement.

(d) The death certificate of your father and the documents identifying all legal representatives.

(e) The vakalatnama signed by the legal heirs in the United States, together with the filing acknowledgement and any objections raised by the registry.

(f) Any order relating to abatement, substitution, or the issuance of notice.

If any procedural defect remains, the necessary application or supporting document should be filed promptly. If abatement has occurred, the appropriate relief must be sought on the basis of the actual procedural history and a properly supported explanation.

The application should not be allowed to remain unresolved merely because notices have been returned without an effective follow-up.

2. Returned Notice: Address, Service and Further Procedure

The order dated 12 October 2026, as described by you, indicates that notice to the proposed additional plaintiffs was returned because they were unavailable at the given address.

The exact service history cannot be determined from this description alone. It is necessary to inspect the notice, process report, postal endorsement, and relevant court order to ascertain who was served, at what address, by which mode, and with what result.

Your advocate should provide a written clarification of the following:

1. The names of the legal heirs to whom notices were issued.

2. The complete addresses stated in the notices.

3. Whether the notices were sent to the local Indian address, the United States address, or both.

4. The mode of service adopted and the corresponding dispatch or postal receipts.

5. The precise reason for the return of each notice.

6. Whether the court has directed fresh service or prescribed any further step.

If the notices were issued to an address at which the legal heirs do not ordinarily reside, the correct address should be furnished and appropriate fresh service sought. If service abroad is necessary, the advocate should seek directions regarding the permissible mode of service under the applicable procedural rules.

A returned notice does not automatically establish that the substitution application has failed. However, it requires an appropriate response and compliance with the court's directions.

The explanation that notice was first sent to a local address in India should be verified from the court record. You should not have to rely exclusively on an oral explanation when the relevant service documents ought to be available for inspection.

Given the time already elapsed, the advocate should seek an early and effective consideration of the substitution application, subject to compliance with the court's procedural requirements.

3. Verification of ₹15,000 Paid on 3 July 2026

You have stated that ₹15,000 was paid on 3 July 2026 towards notice-related expenses.

You may request a written statement identifying the purpose of the payment and the work performed against it. The following documents should be obtained:

(a) The payment receipt or bank transaction confirmation.

(b) The details of the notices prepared and the addresses used.

(c) Copies of postal receipts, process-fee receipts, filing acknowledgements, or other supporting documents, as applicable.

(d) The corresponding court order directing or recording the service process, if any.

(e) A statement of any balance amount remaining, if the payment was an advance for expenses.

The payment should be reconciled against the actual procedural steps taken. The fact that notice was returned does not, by itself, establish that the amount was improperly utilised. The relevant question is whether the expenditure is supported by records and corresponds to the work represented as having been completed.

If the explanation is unsatisfactory, you may seek a further written clarification and consider the appropriate professional grievance mechanism if the circumstances justify it.

4. Pending Injunction and Immediate Protection of the Property

This is a matter requiring urgent attention.

You have informed me that the suit was instituted in 2024 and that the application for status quo or injunction has remained pending. You further allege that the opposing family member has cut down trees, rented out the property, and completed a land survey.

These acts may materially affect the disputed property and the practical effectiveness of the civil proceedings. However, the available remedies will depend upon whether any interim order has already been passed and upon the nature of the rights claimed in the suit.

The first step is to obtain the complete order sheet and the current status of the injunction application. It must be ascertained whether the application remains pending, whether it has been listed for hearing, whether any interim protection has been granted, and whether the court has directed that the injunction issue be considered only after the legal heirs are brought on record.

The statement that the injunction cannot be considered until substitution is completed must be checked against the actual orders. The death of a party may require procedural regularisation, but it should not be assumed, without examining the record, that every request for urgent protection is necessarily barred until substitution is complete.

If no effective injunction or status quo order exists, your advocate should consider moving an appropriate application for urgent interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, read with Section 151 CPC where appropriate. The application should be supported by the pleadings, title documents, evidence of the existing state of the property, and specific particulars of the threatened or ongoing acts.

Depending upon the facts and the relief already claimed, the court may be requested to restrain further dealings with the property, creation of third-party interests, unauthorised alterations, removal of trees, or interference with possession, to the extent justified by the evidence and applicable law.

If an injunction or status quo order already exists, the terms of that order must be examined to determine whether the alleged acts constitute a breach and whether enforcement or other appropriate proceedings are available.

Evidence to be preserved

You should immediately collect and preserve:

• Dated photographs and videos showing the present condition of the property.

• Evidence of tree removal and any damage caused.

• Documents or communications concerning the letting of the property.

• The survey notice, survey sketch, measurement records, and particulars of the authority or person conducting the survey, if available.

• Relevant revenue records, title documents, tax receipts, and available evidence of possession.

• Any communication in which the opposing party has asserted a right to transfer, alter, or otherwise deal with the property.

A land survey, by itself, does not establish title or conclusively determine ownership. Its purpose, legal basis, and effect must be examined. If the survey was carried out by a competent authority, the corresponding records should be obtained through the appropriate procedure.

You should avoid taking unilateral or forcible action concerning the property. Any necessary protection should be pursued through the competent court or authority.

5. Challenge to the Settlement Deed Executed in July 2023

You have alleged that the settlement deed was initiated and arranged by a distant family member who manipulated your elderly parents when they visited India in July 2023. You state that your parents were not in good health and did not understand the nature or legal effect of the documents they signed.

These circumstances warrant careful investigation. Nevertheless, the validity of the settlement deed cannot be conclusively determined without examining the original deed, the title history, the circumstances of execution, and the available evidence.

The following aspects require examination.

First, the nature of ownership. The property should be traced through the title documents to determine whether it was ancestral property in the legally relevant sense, jointly owned property, or the self-acquired property of one or both parents. The rights of the parties will depend upon the source of title, applicable personal law, and the terms of the deed.

Second, the capacity and understanding of the executants. Medical records, evidence concerning the condition of your parents at the relevant time, contemporaneous communications, and witness statements may assist in determining whether they understood the transaction and its consequences.

Third, the question of free consent. If the circumstances support allegations of undue influence, fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation, the relevant facts must be pleaded and proved in accordance with the applicable law. The mere fact that a parent was elderly or in poor health does not automatically invalidate a registered instrument.

Fourth, the execution and registration process. A certified copy of the settlement deed, registration particulars, details of witnesses, and available records relating to the presentation and execution of the instrument should be obtained.

Fifth, the relief claimed in the civil suit. The plaint must be examined to establish whether it seeks cancellation or setting aside of the settlement deed, a declaration of rights, partition, possession, permanent injunction, or any combination of reliefs. If additional relief or amendment is necessary, its maintainability and limitation implications must be considered before filing.

The civil suit should be pursued on a coherent evidentiary and legal basis. The allegation of manipulation should be supported by specific facts rather than treated as sufficient, by itself, to invalidate the deed.

6. Separate Petition under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act

You have stated that a petition was submitted to the Chengannur Revenue Office in August 2025 under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, but that no clear update has been received.

You were reportedly informed that the District Collector and the Tahsildar/RDO were involved in the current matter and that the petition could not proceed.

The position must be verified independently because the civil suit and the Section 23 petition are separate proceedings, even if they concern the same property.

Section 23 addresses circumstances in which a transfer of property by a senior citizen may be declared void where the statutory conditions are fulfilled. In particular, Section 23(1) concerns a transfer subject to a condition that the transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, followed by a refusal or failure to fulfil that condition.

Accordingly, a petition under Section 23 must be assessed against the actual terms of the settlement deed and the applicable statutory requirements. Allegations of fraud, undue influence, or lack of understanding may also be relevant to a civil challenge, but do not automatically establish that the conditions under Section 23 are satisfied.

A. Was the petition filed before the competent authority?

The fact that the petition was delivered to a revenue office does not, without the corresponding records, establish whether it was formally registered before the competent Maintenance Tribunal or forwarded to the competent authority.

You should obtain:

1. The complete petition submitted in August 2025 and all supporting documents.

2. The acknowledgement, diary number, case number, or registration receipt.

3. Any forwarding letter or endorsement issued by the Chengannur Revenue Office.

4. The name and designation of the authority currently holding the file.

5. Any notices, hearing records, orders, or correspondence issued after submission.

6. Written confirmation of the present status and the reason for any delay or non-registration.

The applicable Kerala rules, territorial jurisdiction, and designation of the competent authority must be checked against the actual record. If the petition was forwarded, the receiving authority and file number should be identified. If it was never registered, the reason should be obtained in writing and the appropriate next step considered.

B. Does your father's death affect continuation of the petition?

Your father died on 14 August 2025, after the reported submission of the petition. His death is therefore a significant issue in determining the present maintainability and continuation of the proceedings.

It would not be appropriate to conclude, without examining the statutory provisions, the relief sought, the terms of the settlement deed, and the procedural status of the petition, that the legal heirs automatically acquire the same right to continue the Section 23 proceeding. Equally, it should not be assumed without examination that every remedy concerning the transaction necessarily ends with his death.

The legal heirs should obtain a specific opinion from a Kerala advocate on whether the pending petition can be continued, whether any substitution or other procedural application is permissible, and whether a separate or alternative remedy is required.

The civil suit challenging the settlement deed must be examined independently, because the availability of a remedy under Section 23 does not automatically remove the need to pursue appropriate civil relief where legally maintainable.

C. Does the involvement of the District Collector, Tahsildar, or RDO prevent the petition from proceeding?

The reported involvement of these officials does not, by itself, establish a legal bar to the Section 23 proceeding. Their precise role, the nature of any parallel proceeding, and the statutory allocation of jurisdiction must be ascertained.

If the petition has remained unattended, a written representation may be submitted to the competent authority requesting confirmation of its registration, present status, reasons for delay, and the next date or procedural step. If a reasoned order has already been passed, the appropriate remedy must be determined from that order and the applicable law.

The follow-up should be supported by the original acknowledgement and copies of the earlier correspondence.

7. Verification of ₹18,000 Paid in Connection with the Tribunal Proceeding

You have informed me that ₹18,000 was paid in connection with a tribunal-related proceeding.

This amount should be accounted for separately from the ₹15,000 paid towards notice-related expenses in the civil suit.

You should seek a written statement identifying the date and recipient of the payment, the specific proceeding to which it relates, the purpose for which it was collected, and the work completed.

The supporting documents should include the payment receipt or bank transaction details, filing acknowledgement, petition or application prepared, case number if allotted, official fee receipts where applicable, and copies of any correspondence or orders.

If the amount was paid to an advocate or representative as professional fees or an advance for expenses, request a corresponding itemised statement. If any part was represented as an official tribunal or government fee, it should be verified against the official receipt or the relevant office record.

No conclusion concerning improper utilisation should be drawn without first reconciling the payment with the available records.

8. Whether You Should Continue with the Present Advocate

Your concern regarding the prolonged pendency of the proceedings is understandable. The substitution application, the injunction application, and the Section 23 petition all require a clear status assessment and an actionable plan.

The decision to continue with your present advocate should be based on the case record, the explanation for the procedural delays, and the advocate's ability to implement a clear course of action.

I recommend that you request the following in writing:

(a) A complete set of pleadings, applications, affidavits, orders, filing receipts, and service reports in the civil suit.

(b) The precise status of the substitution application, including its filing number, any defects, and the steps required for effective service.

(c) The present status of the injunction application and the reason for its continued pendency.

(d) Copies of the documents relating to the ₹15,000 and ₹18,000 payments.

(e) The acknowledgement, file number, and current status of the Section 23 petition.

(f) A written action plan specifying the applications and documents to be filed before the next hearing.

If your advocate provides a satisfactory explanation and takes prompt corrective action, continuation may be appropriate.

However, if the record reveals unexplained inaction, repeated adjournments without progress, failure to address procedural defects, or an inability to provide the case file and payment particulars, you should consider obtaining an independent second opinion from a Kerala advocate experienced in property litigation, injunctions, and senior-citizen proceedings.

If necessary, you may change your advocate in accordance with the applicable procedure. The transition should be managed carefully so that the substitution application, interim relief, and any limitation-sensitive remedies are not further prejudiced.

9. Action Plan Before the Next Hearing on 17 December 2026

In my opinion, the following steps should be prioritised:

Step 1: Obtain the complete civil court record. Secure the latest order sheets, plaint, written statements, injunction application, substitution application, service reports, filing receipts, and the order dated 12 October 2026.

Step 2: Regularise the legal-heir application. Establish its precise status, identify any defects, confirm the required service addresses, and file the necessary documents or applications for effective consideration by the court.

Step 3: Examine limitation and abatement. Verify the date and nature of the original filing and whether any application for setting aside abatement or condonation of delay is required.

Step 4: Seek appropriate interim protection. Determine whether an injunction or status quo order already exists. If no effective order is in force, consider seeking an urgent hearing and appropriately framed interim relief supported by documentary evidence.

Step 5: Preserve evidence concerning the property. Obtain records relating to the survey, tree removal, tenancy, and any other material change. Preserve dated photographs, communications, and available official records.

Step 6: Trace the Section 23 petition. Obtain the filing acknowledgement, identify the competent authority, ascertain the present status, and secure a specific legal opinion on the effect of your father's death.

Step 7: Reconcile the payments. Obtain written accounts and supporting receipts for both the ₹15,000 notice-related payment and the ₹18,000 tribunal-related payment.

Step 8: Prepare a focused hearing strategy. The advocate should be ready to explain the procedural status, seek directions for substitution and service, and press for consideration of interim protection to the extent legally maintainable.

These steps should be initiated well before 17 December 2026. The objective should be to secure meaningful procedural progress rather than allow the next hearing to result in another unexplained adjournment.

10. Final Opinion

On the facts presently available, the matter requires immediate attention on three principal fronts: bringing the legal heirs on record, securing appropriate protection for the disputed property, and establishing the actual status of the Section 23 petition.

The allegations concerning the settlement deed must be supported by the original instrument, the title history, evidence of your parents' condition and understanding at the relevant time, and other material establishing the grounds on which the deed is challenged.

The alleged acts of tree removal, letting, and surveying should be documented and assessed against the existing court orders. If no effective interim protection exists, an appropriate application should be pursued without unnecessary delay.

The Section 23 petition must be traced through the relevant office records. The involvement of revenue officials should not be accepted as a sufficient explanation for indefinite inaction without establishing the authority's jurisdiction and the actual procedural status.

Finally, the present advocate should be asked to provide the complete file, written status particulars, and a concrete action plan. If these matters are not addressed satisfactorily, an independent review by a Kerala property-litigation advocate would be prudent.

This opinion is preliminary and based on the facts supplied by you. A definitive opinion on the merits, limitation, maintainability, and precise reliefs requires examination of the original settlement deed, title documents, civil pleadings, court orders, service reports, and the records of the Section 23 proceeding.

For detailed legal advise you may connect on https://share.google/jCbuYXivLzFBy0dSK