Raghavan vs Panavoor Gramapanchayath Advocate - Baburaj V A, MANIKANTON K — 200028/2020
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 41. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 12th March 2026.
AS - CIVIL APPEAL
CNR: KLTV330001612020
Filing Number
86/2020
Filing Date
03-07-2020
Registration No
200028/2020
Registration Date
03-07-2020
Court
Sub Court Nedumangadu
Judge
1-SUB JUDGE AND ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE NEDUMANGAD
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Raghavan
Adv. K.P.Gopalakrishna Pillai
Respondent(s)
Panavoor Gramapanchayath Advocate - Baburaj V A, MANIKANTON K
Hearing History
Judge: 1-SUB JUDGE AND ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE NEDUMANGAD
Disposed
For Judgment
For Judgment
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-02-2026 | For Judgment |
| 04-02-2026 | For Judgment |
| 28-01-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 12-01-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Sub Judge court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against Panavoor Grama Panchayat. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove exclusive possession of the claimed 10-cent property, citing vague pleadings, discrepancies between claimed and surveyed land measurements (10 cents vs. 7.562 cents), absence of documentary evidence of property transfer, and the panchayat's demolition of part of the building to construct a community center. The court upheld the trial court's dismissal, ruling the plaintiff had not provided convincing evidence to establish possession required for an injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The Sub Judge court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against Panavoor Grama Panchayat. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove exclusive possession of the claimed 10-cent property, citing vague pleadings, discrepancies between claimed and surveyed land measurements (10 cents vs. 7.562 cents), absence of documentary evidence of property transfer, and the panchayat's demolition of part of the building to construct a community center. The court upheld the trial court's dismissal, ruling the plaintiff had not provided convincing evidence to establish possession required for an injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts