Janaki vs Gopalakrishna Panicker Advocate - HARINDRA MOHAN NAIR — 100102/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Section 26, Order 7, Rule 1,2,4,6. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED WITH COST. on 31st March 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLKT170001272019
Filing Number
100102/2019
Filing Date
01-04-2019
Registration No
100102/2019
Registration Date
01-04-2019
Court
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Judge
1-MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Decision Date
31st March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED WITH COST.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Janaki
Adv. NINAN K. SCARIA.
Respondent(s)
Gopalakrishna Panicker Advocate - HARINDRA MOHAN NAIR
Reji
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Disposed
Order/Judgement
For Hearing
Call On
For Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 24-03-2026 | For Hearing |
| 16-03-2026 | Call On |
| 26-02-2026 | For Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 100102/2019 (O.S. 102/2019) The court dismissed Janaki's suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant Gopalakrishna Panicker. Janaki claimed a 50+ year-old 8-foot pathway on defendant's property was her only vehicular access, allegedly widened to 12 feet in 2015-2016 through an oral agreement with a third party developer. The court found that Janaki failed to produce credible evidence of the pre-existing pathway's existence or any enforceable right over defendant's property, which remained exclusively his. The court noted surveyor plans confirmed the disputed road was part of defendant's land, and a public 4-foot panchayat road provided alternative access to Janaki's property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 100102/2019 (O.S. 102/2019) The court dismissed Janaki's suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant Gopalakrishna Panicker. Janaki claimed a 50+ year-old 8-foot pathway on defendant's property was her only vehicular access, allegedly widened to 12 feet in 2015-2016 through an oral agreement with a third party developer. The court found that Janaki failed to produce credible evidence of the pre-existing pathway's existence or any enforceable right over defendant's property, which remained exclusively his. The court noted surveyor plans confirmed the disputed road was part of defendant's land, and a public 4-foot panchayat road provided alternative access to Janaki's property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts