V.C Sakariya vs Karthika — 200092/2020

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 31st March 2026.

Case disposed

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLAL290001592020

Filing Number

200179/2020

Filing Date

01-Jun-2020

Registration No

200092/2020

Registration Date

01-Jun-2020

Court

Munsiff Court, Chengannur

Judge

1-Munsiff, Chengannur

Decision Date

31-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.V.C Sakariya

    Adv. ROY PHILIP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Karthika

  2. 2.Gopi

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 31-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Orders in IA

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Objection

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  7. 17-Feb-2026

    Pre trial steps

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  8. 04-Feb-2026

    Pre trial steps

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  9. 20-Dec-2025

    Return of notice

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  10. 20-Dec-2025

    Disposed

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  11. 27-Aug-2022

    JudgementView PDF

    The Munsiff Court of Chengannur decreed the plaintiff's suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff holds easement rights by prescription over a 4-foot-wide pathway and that the defendants unlawfully obstructed it by planting trees. The court directed the defendants to remove the obstructing trees within one month and permanently restrained them from further trespass, with costs awarded to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  12. 27-Aug-2022

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  13. 19-Aug-2022

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  14. 12-Aug-2022

    For Hearing

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  15. 16-Jul-2022

    For Hearing

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  16. 08-Jul-2022

    For Hearing

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  17. 02-Jul-2022

    For Hearing

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  18. 24-Jun-2022

    exparte evidence

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  19. 20-Jun-2022

    exparte evidence

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  20. 13-Jun-2022

    exparte evidence

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  21. 26-Mar-2022

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  22. 25-Feb-2022

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  23. 07-Jan-2022

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  24. 24-Nov-2021

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  25. 13-Oct-2021

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  26. 27-Aug-2021

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  27. 11-Jun-2021

    No sitting notified

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  28. 04-Mar-2021

    For commission report

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  29. 13-Jan-2021

    For commission report

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  30. 04-Dec-2020

    For commission report

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  31. 01-Dec-2020

    For commission report

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  32. 19-Oct-2020

    For commission report

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  33. 17-Sep-2020

    For commission report

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  34. 07-Aug-2020

    For commission report

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  35. 01-Jul-2020

    For commission report

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  36. 30-Jun-2020

    For commission report

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  37. 10-Jun-2020

    For commission report

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  38. 02-Jun-2020

    For commission report

    Munsiff, Chengannur

  39. 01-Jun-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  40. 01-Jun-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. 200092/2020

casestatus.in Summary

The Munsiff Court of Chengannur decreed the plaintiff's suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff holds easement rights by prescription over a 4-foot-wide pathway and that the defendants unlawfully obstructed it by planting trees. The court directed the defendants to remove the obstructing trees within one month and permanently restrained them from further trespass, with costs awarded to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case