Anurajan vs Vineesh Viswanathan — 100476/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Disposed: Uncontested--DECREED on 27th March 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLKM280008832023

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

22-12-2023

Filing Number

100776/2023

Filing Date

22-12-2023

Registration No

100476/2023

Registration Date

22-12-2023

Court

Munsiff Court ,Karunagappally

Judge

1-Munsiff

Decision Date

27th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DECREED

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code Section 26
IA/5/2025 Classification : Direction Petition Section AnurajanVineesh Viswanathan

Petitioner(s)

Anurajan

Adv. PREMACHANDRAN. N.C

Rajamma

Adv. PREMACHANDRAN. N.C

Respondent(s)

Vineesh Viswanathan

Juwal Mohan

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Munsiff

27-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

Order/ Judgement

28-02-2026

No sitting notified

19-02-2026

FOR HEARING

14-01-2026

For Steps

Final Orders / Judgements

27-03-2026
Judgement

Case Summary: 100476/2023 The Munsiff Court in Karunagappally granted a permanent prohibitory injunction in favor of Anurajan and Rajamma against Vineesh Viswanathan and Jewel Mohan. The court found that the plaintiffs own property (Schedule A) supported by a 1971 sale deed and current tax receipts, and that defendants threatened to encroach upon and widen an existing 1.25-meter pathway (Schedule B) through plaintiffs' land without authorization. Since the defendants failed to appear and the plaintiffs' unchallenged evidence established genuine ownership and threat of irreparable harm, the court permanently restrained the defendants from trespassing, destroying boundary marks, or encroaching on the property, and ordered them to pay suit costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 100476/2023 The Munsiff Court in Karunagappally granted a permanent prohibitory injunction in favor of Anurajan and Rajamma against Vineesh Viswanathan and Jewel Mohan. The court found that the plaintiffs own property (Schedule A) supported by a 1971 sale deed and current tax receipts, and that defendants threatened to encroach upon and widen an existing 1.25-meter pathway (Schedule B) through plaintiffs' land without authorization. Since the defendants failed to appear and the plaintiffs' unchallenged evidence established genuine ownership and threat of irreparable harm, the court permanently restrained the defendants from trespassing, destroying boundary marks, or encroaching on the property, and ordered them to pay suit costs. 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

Munsiff Court ,Karunagappally All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case