Nabeesa Thayilakandy Puthiyapurayil vs Subaida T — 341/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDERVIIRULEI. Status: Stay report. Next hearing: 30th June 2026.

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLKN110009352024

Stay report

Next Hearing

30th June 2026

e-Filing Number

29-08-2024

Filing Number

1122/2024

Filing Date

29-08-2024

Registration No

341/2024

Registration Date

29-08-2024

Court

Principal Munsiffs Court, Kannur

Judge

3-Prl. Munsiff/jfcm4, Kannur

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section ORDERVIIRULEI

Petitioner(s)

Nabeesa Thayilakandy Puthiyapurayil

Adv. R Mahesh Varma

Jabbar Thayilakandy Puthiyapurayil

Adv. R Mahesh Varma

Shabana P

Adv. R Mahesh Varma

Respondent(s)

Subaida T

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Prl. Munsiff/jfcm4, Kannur

22-05-2026

Stay report

13-03-2026

For hearing on IA

04-02-2026

Await report

19-12-2025

Await report

14-11-2025

Await report

Interim Orders

31-05-2025
Order

Case Summary: OS 341/2024 Outcome: Petition ALLOWED with mandatory injunction granted. The Munsiff's court ordered the respondents (Subaida T and Shabeena T) to restore a disputed pathway (Schedule B property) to its original condition by removing a newly constructed compound wall and gate within one month at their own cost. The court found that the petitioners established a prima facie case of easement by prescription over an 8-foot-wide pathway used for over 80 years to access their properties, and that the respondents violated an earlier ad-interim injunction order by blocking it. The court rejected the respondents' claim that they constructed the wall with court permission, finding the gate was placed at a point that obstructed the pathway's use. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OS 341/2024 Outcome: Petition ALLOWED with mandatory injunction granted. The Munsiff's court ordered the respondents (Subaida T and Shabeena T) to restore a disputed pathway (Schedule B property) to its original condition by removing a newly constructed compound wall and gate within one month at their own cost. The court found that the petitioners established a prima facie case of easement by prescription over an 8-foot-wide pathway used for over 80 years to access their properties, and that the respondents violated an earlier ad-interim injunction order by blocking it. The court rejected the respondents' claim that they constructed the wall with court permission, finding the gate was placed at a point that obstructed the pathway's use. 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

Principal Munsiffs Court, Kannur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case