Suresh vs Vasudevan Namboodiri Advocate - K.R.Santhoshkumar — 200308/2013
Case under Civil Courts Act, 1957 (kerala) Section U/s.26O7R1. Disposed: Uncontested--DECREED WITH COST on 09th March 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLPK130001422013
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
200308/2013
Filing Date
17-08-2013
Registration No
200308/2013
Registration Date
17-08-2013
Court
Munsiff Court, Ottappalam
Judge
1-Munsiff
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DECREED WITH COST
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Suresh
Adv. K.R.PRADEEP
Respondent(s)
Vasudevan Namboodiri Advocate - K.R.Santhoshkumar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff
Disposed
Call on
Order/ Judgement
For Examination of Witness
Issue Summons
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 03-03-2026 | Call on | |
| 25-02-2026 | Order/ Judgement | |
| 18-02-2026 | For Examination of Witness | |
| 12-02-2026 | Issue Summons |
Interim Orders
The Munsiff Court of Ottapalam dismissed the plaintiff's suit for mandatory and perpetual prohibitory injunctions regarding a right-of-way dispute. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove he had an easement by grant over the disputed pathway, as he did not produce the partition deed allegedly granting this right, warranting an adverse inference against him under the Indian Evidence Act. Additionally, discrepancies in survey numbers and the plaintiff's inability to establish the way's existence and location further weakened his case, resulting in dismissal without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Munsiff Court of Ottapalam dismissed the plaintiff's suit for mandatory and perpetual prohibitory injunctions regarding a right-of-way dispute. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove he had an easement by grant over the disputed pathway, as he did not produce the partition deed allegedly granting this right, warranting an adverse inference against him under the Indian Evidence Act. Additionally, discrepancies in survey numbers and the plaintiff's inability to establish the way's existence and location further weakened his case, resulting in dismissal without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts