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-Aug-2020
Registration No
234/2020
Registration Date
04-Aug-2020
Court
Munsiffss Court Kuthuparamba
Judge
1-Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
Decision Date
10-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED WITH COST
Last updated 10-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Vimala,W/o Surendran,Idavalath Thazhe Kuniyil house,Pattyam amsom desom
Adv. E Sanil kumar
Respondent(s)
-
1.A.Raghavan,Thriveni,Pattyam amsom desom Advocate - N.Premarajan
-
2.Sobha
Adv. N Premarajan,PREMARAJAN NEYYAN
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Apr-2026
Judgement
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.
-
10-Apr-2026
Disposed
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
06-Apr-2026
Order/Judgement
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
30-Mar-2026
For Hearing
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
25-Mar-2026
For.Hearing
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
24-Mar-2026
Defendant/Respondent Evidence
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
23-Mar-2026
For evidence
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
17-Mar-2026
Return of summons
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
16-Mar-2026
Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
11-Mar-2026
Call on
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
04-Mar-2026
Listed For Trial
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
03-Mar-2026
additional issues
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
28-Feb-2026
For additional written statement
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
26-Feb-2026
Call on
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
24-Feb-2026
Written Statement
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
20-Feb-2026
Call on
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
18-Feb-2026
Call on
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
17-Feb-2026
Call on
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
13-Feb-2026
Call on
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
12-Feb-2026
Call on
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
07-Feb-2026
Call on
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
29-Jan-2026
Pre trial steps
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
07-Jan-2026
For commission report
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
17-Dec-2025
Call on
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
03-Dec-2025
Issues
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
19-Nov-2025
Call on
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
27-Oct-2025
Call on
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
27-Aug-2025
Call on
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
10-Jun-2025
Stay report
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
10-Mar-2025
Stay report
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
27-Jan-2025
Stay report
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
07-Dec-2024
Stay report
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
28-Oct-2024
Stay report
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
27-Aug-2024
Stay report
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
28-Jun-2024
Stay report
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
18-May-2024
Stay report
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
27-Feb-2024
Stay report
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
12-Jan-2024
Stay report
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
31-Oct-2023
Stay report
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
18-Sep-2023
Stay report
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
21-Jul-2023
Stay report
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
02-Jun-2023
Stay report
Munsiff/Jfcm No.2, Kuthuparamba
-
03-Mar-2023
Report Of Mediator
-
21-Dec-2022
Report Of Mediator
-
28-Nov-2022
Report Of Mediator
-
24-Sep-2022
Report Of Mediator
-
22-Jul-2022
Report Of Mediator
-
28-Mar-2022
For appearence of plaintiff/defendent
-
06-Jan-2022
For appearence of plaintiff/defendent
-
25-Oct-2021
Call on
-
26-Jul-2021
Call on
-
30-Mar-2021
Call on
-
30-Jan-2021
Call on
-
04-Jan-2021
Call on
-
22-Dec-2020
Call on
-
26-Nov-2020
Call on
-
10-Nov-2020
Call on
-
02-Nov-2020
Call on
-
22-Oct-2020
Order/Judgement
-
13-Oct-2020
Order/Judgement
-
11-Sep-2020
Order/Judgement
-
09-Sep-2020
Order/Judgement
-
07-Sep-2020
For counter
-
25-Aug-2020
For counter
-
24-Aug-2020
For counter
-
20-Aug-2020
For counter
-
18-Aug-2020
Call on
-
10-Aug-2020
Call on
-
04-Aug-2020
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-Aug-2020
Case filed
Registration No. 234/2020
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.
Explore other courts