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
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
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
Stay report
For hearing on IA
Await report
Await report
Await report
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts