Vijayanathan vs Raveendran — 100360/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Listed to. Next hearing: 15th July 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLAL250005242018
Next Hearing
15th July 2026
Filing Number
100533/2018
Filing Date
25-09-2018
Registration No
100360/2018
Registration Date
25-09-2018
Court
Munsiffs Court, Kayamkulam
Judge
1-Munsiff
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vijayanathan
Adv. REMANAN PILLAI. S
Respondent(s)
Raveendran
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
Listed to
Call on
Listed to
Adjourned
Call on
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Listed to |
| 16-03-2026 | Call on |
| 21-01-2026 | Listed to |
| 05-12-2025 | Adjourned |
| 22-11-2025 | Call on |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Vijayanathan v. Raveendran (OS 360/2018) Outcome: Suit decreed. The Munsiff's Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff's use of a pathway (Plaint B schedule) essential for accessing co-owned property. The defendant was also ordered to pay the plaintiff's court costs. Key Issue: Whether the plaintiff, as co-owner of ancestral property, has an easement right to use a 9-foot-wide pathway on neighboring land for ingress and egress. The defendant (the plaintiff's brother) claimed exclusive rights over the pathway via a clandestine agreement, but the court found the plaintiff's predecessors had acquired prescriptive easement rights through 30+ years of open, continuous use without interruption. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Vijayanathan v. Raveendran (OS 360/2018) Outcome: Suit decreed. The Munsiff's Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff's use of a pathway (Plaint B schedule) essential for accessing co-owned property. The defendant was also ordered to pay the plaintiff's court costs. Key Issue: Whether the plaintiff, as co-owner of ancestral property, has an easement right to use a 9-foot-wide pathway on neighboring land for ingress and egress. The defendant (the plaintiff's brother) claimed exclusive rights over the pathway via a clandestine agreement, but the court found the plaintiff's predecessors had acquired prescriptive easement rights through 30+ years of open, continuous use without interruption. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts