Rafeeka Beevi vs Mehja Advocate - RAMEES BEEVI A — 300346/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 18th July 2026.

Issues Next hearing 18-Jul-2026 this date has passed

OS - ORIGINAL SUIT

CNR: KLTV470005632023

e-Filing Number

24-08-2023

Filing Number

583/2023

Filing Date

24-Aug-2023

Registration No

300346/2023

Registration Date

24-Aug-2023

Court

Munsiffs Court, Varkala

Judge

1-Munsiff, Varkala

Last updated 17-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rafeeka Beevi

    Adv. Suresh Kumar.P.S

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Mehja Advocate - RAMEES BEEVI A

  2. 2.Jasna

    Adv. RAMEES BEEVI A

  3. 3.Anvar

    Adv. SANTHOSH KUMAR N

Case History

  1. 18-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 26-May-2026

    Issues

    Munsiff, Varkala

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff, Varkala

  4. 04-Feb-2026

    Call on

    Munsiff, Varkala

  5. 01-Dec-2025

    Issues

    Munsiff, Varkala

  6. 13-Oct-2025

    For hearing on IA

    Munsiff, Varkala

  7. 29-Jul-2025

    Issues

    Munsiff, Varkala

  8. 12-Jun-2025

    Call on

    Munsiff, Varkala

  9. 27-May-2025

    Issues

    Munsiff, Varkala

  10. 22-Jan-2025

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Varkala

  11. 06-Nov-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Varkala

  12. 09-Aug-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Varkala

  13. 12-Apr-2024

    OrderView PDF

  14. 12-Apr-2024

    OrderView PDF

  15. 12-Apr-2024

    OrderView PDF

  16. 12-Apr-2024

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 300346/2023 Outcome: Petition dismissed with costs. Rafeeka Beevi (82 years) sought a temporary injunction against three respondents (Mehja, Jesna, and Anvar) to prevent them from trespassing on her property in Ayiroor after they allegedly erected iron fencing on March 10, 2023. The Munsiff's court found that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of ownership or possession of the claimed 10.60 acres in resurvey 197/12, having produced no title deed and only outdated documents from 1958-1966 and a 2012 tax receipt. Revenue records from the village office (respondents' exhibits) showed the petitioner held no property in the claimed location. The court concluded there was material suppression of facts, insufficient proof of property identification, and no basis for granting the temporary injunction sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  17. 12-Apr-2024

    Written Statement

    Munsiff, Varkala

  18. 02-Apr-2024

    Order/Judgement

    Munsiff, Varkala

  19. 22-Mar-2024

    For Hearing

    Munsiff, Varkala

  20. 15-Mar-2024

    For Hearing

    Munsiff, Varkala

  21. 07-Mar-2024

    For Hearing

    Munsiff, Varkala

  22. 19-Feb-2024

    For Hearing

    Munsiff, Varkala

  23. 17-Feb-2024

    For Hearing

    Munsiff, Varkala

  24. 09-Feb-2024

    Objection

    Munsiff, Varkala

  25. 14-Nov-2023

    For Steps

    Munsiff, Varkala

  26. 07-Sep-2023

    For commission report

    Munsiff, Varkala

  27. 24-Aug-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 24-Aug-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 300346/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 300346/2023 Outcome: Petition dismissed with costs. Rafeeka Beevi (82 years) sought a temporary injunction against three respondents (Mehja, Jesna, and Anvar) to prevent them from trespassing on her property in Ayiroor after they allegedly erected iron fencing on March 10, 2023. The Munsiff's court found that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of ownership or possession of the claimed 10.60 acres in resurvey 197/12, having produced no title deed and only outdated documents from 1958-1966 and a 2012 tax receipt. Revenue records from the village office (respondents' exhibits) showed the petitioner held no property in the claimed location. The court concluded there was material suppression of facts, insufficient proof of property identification, and no basis for granting the temporary injunction sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case