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

Case disposed

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

Civil Procedure Code Section 21
IA/1/2026 Classification : Application To Receive Documents Section AnithakumariAnilkumar

Petitioner(s)

Anithakumari

Adv. Hameed Manthalasseril

Respondent(s)

Anilkumar Advocate - JABBARKUTTY. U

Sreelekha

Adv. JABBARKUTTY. U

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Munsiff

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

17-03-2026
Judgement

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Munsiffs Court, Kayamkulam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case