Rosy Paul vs Jose — 100018/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Ord41,Rule1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 28th March 2026.
AS - APPEAL SUIT
CNR: KLTR010005112022
Filing Number
100890/2022
Filing Date
29-01-2022
Registration No
100018/2022
Registration Date
29-01-2022
Court
District And Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur
Judge
5-Additional District Court-II/Vigilance Judge,Thrissur
Decision Date
28th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rosy Paul
Adv. Netto N J
Respondent(s)
Jose
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Additional District Court-II/Vigilance Judge,Thrissur
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
For further hearing
FOR HEARING
Adjourned
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 13-03-2026 | For further hearing |
| 12-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 01-01-2026 | Adjourned |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 100018/2022 (Rosy Paul v. Jose) The Additional District Judge dismissed Rosy Paul's appeal, upholding the trial court's rejection of her claim for an easement right over a pathway (B Schedule property) to access her land. The court found Paul failed to establish either easement by prescription (requiring 20 years uninterrupted use with all statutory ingredients properly pleaded) or easement of necessity (since an alternate pathway existed), and rejected the injunction plea because Paul suppressed prior related litigation and approached with "unclean hands." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 100018/2022 (Rosy Paul v. Jose) The Additional District Judge dismissed Rosy Paul's appeal, upholding the trial court's rejection of her claim for an easement right over a pathway (B Schedule property) to access her land. The court found Paul failed to establish either easement by prescription (requiring 20 years uninterrupted use with all statutory ingredients properly pleaded) or easement of necessity (since an alternate pathway existed), and rejected the injunction plea because Paul suppressed prior related litigation and approached with "unclean hands." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
More from this court
District And Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur All courts →Explore other courts