Vimala,W/o Surendran,Idavalath Thazhe Kuniyil house,Pattyam amsom desom vs A.Raghavan,Thriveni,Pattyam amsom desom Advocate - N.Premarajan — 234/2020
Case under Procedure Code \ Section U/s26O7R1. Disposed: Contested--DECREED WITH COST on 10th April 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKN220004482020
Filing Number
486/2020
Filing Date
04-08-2020
Registration No
234/2020
Registration Date
04-08-2020
Court
Munsiffss Court Kuthuparamba
Judge
1-Munsiff/JFCM No.2, Kuthuparamba
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED WITH COST
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vimala,W/o Surendran,Idavalath Thazhe Kuniyil house,Pattyam amsom desom
Adv. E Sanil kumar
Respondent(s)
A.Raghavan,Thriveni,Pattyam amsom desom Advocate - N.Premarajan
Sobha
Adv. N Premarajan,PREMARAJAN NEYYAN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff/JFCM No.2, Kuthuparamba
Disposed
Order/Judgement
FOR HEARING
For.Hearing
Defendant/Respondent Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-04-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 30-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 25-03-2026 | For.Hearing |
| 24-03-2026 | Defendant/Respondent Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: OS 234/2020 - Vimala v. K. Raghavan Court Decision: The Munsiff's Court in Kuthuparamba decreed the suit in favor of plaintiff Vimala, declaring she holds an irrevocable licence over the defendants' property to construct and use a road for vehicular access. The court granted permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from obstructing the road and mandatory injunction requiring removal of obstructions within 2 months. Key Reasoning: The court found that the plaintiff's husband purchased adjoining land and constructed a mud road through the defendants' property at considerable expense, relying on their permission. Corroborating evidence from the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan established the road's existence and continuous construction through the defendants' land, making it probable that permission was granted. The court rejected the defendants' argument that an irrevocable licence requires registration, holding that irrevocability arises from equity and circumstance when the licensee acts to their detriment, not from formal conveyance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS 234/2020 - Vimala v. K. Raghavan Court Decision: The Munsiff's Court in Kuthuparamba decreed the suit in favor of plaintiff Vimala, declaring she holds an irrevocable licence over the defendants' property to construct and use a road for vehicular access. The court granted permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from obstructing the road and mandatory injunction requiring removal of obstructions within 2 months. Key Reasoning: The court found that the plaintiff's husband purchased adjoining land and constructed a mud road through the defendants' property at considerable expense, relying on their permission. Corroborating evidence from the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan established the road's existence and continuous construction through the defendants' land, making it probable that permission was granted. The court rejected the defendants' argument that an irrevocable licence requires registration, holding that irrevocability arises from equity and circumstance when the licensee acts to their detriment, not from formal conveyance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts