Lissy Thoams vs Augustian Joseph Advocate - Jose Thomas — 200168/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1. Status: Stayed Call On. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKT110003002019
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
Filing Number
282/2019
Filing Date
06-08-2019
Registration No
200168/2019
Registration Date
06-08-2019
Court
Munsiff Court, Pala
Judge
1-MUNSIFF PALA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Lissy Thoams
Adv. RAJESH V R, SUNNY DAVID
Jenson M Tom
Adv. RAJESH V R,SUNNY DAVID
Jeffy M Tom
Adv. RAJESH V R,SUNNY DAVID
Respondent(s)
Augustian Joseph Advocate - Jose Thomas
Joseph
Adv. Jose Thomas
Jenniffer
Adv. Jose Thomas
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MUNSIFF PALA
Stayed Call On
Stayed Call On
Stayed Call On
Stayed Call On
Stay Report
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Stayed Call On |
| 15-12-2025 | Stayed Call On |
| 15-11-2025 | Stayed Call On |
| 23-08-2025 | Stayed Call On |
| 05-06-2025 | Stay Report |
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 200168/2019 The Court of the Munsiff, Pala decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs Lissy Thomas, Jenson M. Tom, and Jeffy M. Tom on March 14, 2022. The court declared that the plaintiffs have acquired prescriptive easement rights over a 100-meter road (10 feet wide) through defendants' property to access their own land, and issued a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from obstructing, altering, or damaging this road. The counterclaim was dismissed for default, and plaintiffs were awarded costs against the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 200168/2019 The Court of the Munsiff, Pala decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs Lissy Thomas, Jenson M. Tom, and Jeffy M. Tom on March 14, 2022. The court declared that the plaintiffs have acquired prescriptive easement rights over a 100-meter road (10 feet wide) through defendants' property to access their own land, and issued a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from obstructing, altering, or damaging this road. The counterclaim was dismissed for default, and plaintiffs were awarded costs against the defendants. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts