Mohesh vs Sunilkumar — 100066/2022
Case under Ia/4/2025 Classification : Application for Admission of Documents Section MoheshSunilkumar. Disposed: Contested--DECREED WITH COST on 10th April 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLTR190001902022
Filing Number
100066/2022
Filing Date
01-02-2022
Registration No
100066/2022
Registration Date
01-02-2022
Court
Munsiffcourt, Kodungallur
Judge
1-MUNSIFF KODUNGALLUR
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED WITH COST
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mohesh
Respondent(s)
Sunilkumar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MUNSIFF KODUNGALLUR
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
Adjourned
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 31-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 23-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 19-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 16-03-2026 | Adjourned |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: O.S.66/2022 - Mohesh v. Sunilkumar The Munsiff Court in Kodungallur granted a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing onto the plaintiffs' inherited property or committing any act of waste, while rejecting the plaintiffs' claim for Rs.30,000 in damages for cut trees due to insufficient proof of valuation. The court found credible evidence through witness testimony, photographs, and a court-appointed commissioner's report that trees were indeed cut and removed from the property, and that defendants posed a continuing threat to the plaintiffs' possession, justifying the injunction despite acknowledging evidentiary gaps regarding exact tree values. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: O.S.66/2022 - Mohesh v. Sunilkumar The Munsiff Court in Kodungallur granted a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing onto the plaintiffs' inherited property or committing any act of waste, while rejecting the plaintiffs' claim for Rs.30,000 in damages for cut trees due to insufficient proof of valuation. The court found credible evidence through witness testimony, photographs, and a court-appointed commissioner's report that trees were indeed cut and removed from the property, and that defendants posed a continuing threat to the plaintiffs' possession, justifying the injunction despite acknowledging evidentiary gaps regarding exact tree values. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts