Anithakumari vs Anilkumar Advocate - JABBARKUTTY. U — 100272/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 21. Disposed: Uncontested--DECREED WITH COST on 17th March 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLAL250003822023
Filing Number
382/2023
Filing Date
19-07-2023
Registration No
100272/2023
Registration Date
19-07-2023
Court
Munsiffs Court, Kayamkulam
Judge
1-Munsiff
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DECREED WITH COST
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Anithakumari
Adv. Hameed Manthalasseril
Respondent(s)
Anilkumar Advocate - JABBARKUTTY. U
Sreelekha
Adv. JABBARKUTTY. U
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
Disposed
Adjourned
FOR HEARING
exparte evidence
exparte evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Adjourned |
| 03-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 10-02-2026 | exparte evidence |
| 29-01-2026 | exparte evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Anithakumari v. Anilkumar & Sreelekha (OS 272/2023) Court Decision: The Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam granted a permanent prohibitory injunction in favor of plaintiff Anithakumari, restraining the defendants from trespassing on her 2-acre property, obstructing construction/measurement activities, destroying boundary marks, or opening new roads through the property. The defendants were also ordered to pay litigation costs. Key Reasoning: The court found the plaintiff's unchallenged evidence—including a 2020 Settlement deed establishing ownership and clear boundary marks—conclusively proved her absolute ownership. Since the defendants failed to file a written statement despite appearing through counsel, they were proceeded against ex parte under CPC Order VIII Rule 10. The defendants' threat to prevent construction unless the plaintiff sold 2 cents of land was deemed an unlawful interference with her property rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Anithakumari v. Anilkumar & Sreelekha (OS 272/2023) Court Decision: The Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam granted a permanent prohibitory injunction in favor of plaintiff Anithakumari, restraining the defendants from trespassing on her 2-acre property, obstructing construction/measurement activities, destroying boundary marks, or opening new roads through the property. The defendants were also ordered to pay litigation costs. Key Reasoning: The court found the plaintiff's unchallenged evidence—including a 2020 Settlement deed establishing ownership and clear boundary marks—conclusively proved her absolute ownership. Since the defendants failed to file a written statement despite appearing through counsel, they were proceeded against ex parte under CPC Order VIII Rule 10. The defendants' threat to prevent construction unless the plaintiff sold 2 cents of land was deemed an unlawful interference with her property rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts