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
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
Petitioner(s)
Anurajan
Adv. PREMACHANDRAN. N.C
Rajamma
Adv. PREMACHANDRAN. N.C
Respondent(s)
Vineesh Viswanathan
Juwal Mohan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
No sitting notified
FOR HEARING
For Steps
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts