Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No.187/2018

Case between Anil Raj vs Sajeev.M regarding mandatory injunction and consequential reliefs

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Judge
Smt.Sreelakshmi. C
Order Date
2025-03-17
Duration
approximately-2 years 1 month
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Anil Raj is the plaintiff, and Sajeev.M is the defendant in this case concerning a dispute over property and rent. The plaintiff is seeking a mandatory injunction to vacate the property occupied by the defendant and to collect overdue rent.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court issued a decree allowing the plaintiff's request for the defendant to vacate the property and to pay outstanding rent. The plaintiff was granted possession of the shop room.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendant is directed to vacate the plaint B schedule premises and to give possession of the plaint B schedule shop room to the plaintiff within a period of 3 months.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court issued a decree allowing the plaintiff's request for the defendant to vacate the property and to pay outstanding rent. The plaintiff was granted possession of the shop room.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the plaintiff's ownership and possession of the property sufficiently supported by evidence.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found the plaintiff's ownership and possession of the property sufficiently supported by evidence.
Supporting Evidence
From the oral and documentary evidence adduced from the side of plaintiff, the plaintiffs ownership and possession over the plaint schedule property is proved by Exts.A1 to A8 and the oral evidence of PW1. The evidence of plaintiff remains unchallenged.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: (i) The defendant is directed to vacate the plaint B schedule premises and to give possession of the plaint B schedule shop room to the plaintiff within a period of 3 months from the date of decree.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Anil Raj
Party Age
45
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sajeev.M
Party Age
34
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of Sale Deed No. 2057/2012, Copy of Sale Agreement, Original Rental Agreement, Copy of Complaint to the Secretary, Venganoor Grama Panchayath, Copy of Notice issued from Venganoor Grama Panchayath, Copies of the falsely created rental agreement and application submitted by the defendant, Copy of Advocate Notice, Copy of Judgment in OS.45/2015
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Sajeev.S.R
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendant directed to vacate the plaint B schedule premises and give possession to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
The defendant is directed to vacate the plaint B schedule premises and to give possession of the plaint B schedule shop room to the plaintiff within a period of 3 months from the date of decree.
Relief Type: Damages
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff entitled to realise an amount of Rs.61,200 with future interest.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to realise an amount of ₹61,200 with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff allowed to realise rent from the date of suit till the defendant vacates the shop room.
Evidence:
Allow the plaintiff to realise the rent of Rs.1,700/- from the date of suit till the defendant vacating the shop room.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff entitled to recover costs of the suit.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to realise costs of the suit from the defendants.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves plaintiff's ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of the agreement to sell the property to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Rental Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Details the rental terms agreed upon by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the complaint made to the Panchayat against the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice issued by the Panchayat to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Falsely Created Rental Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Discusses the fraudulent document created by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Advocate Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice demanding rent and possession from the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Judgment
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Judgment in OS.45/2015 related to the vendor of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A8

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Anil Raj vs Sajeev.M regarding mandatory injunction and consequential reliefs
Case Code Year
Case between Anil Raj vs Sajeev.M regarding mandatory injunction and consequential reliefs

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Mon, 01/01/2018 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 03/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Union Bank of India et al vs Midhun. M regarding rejection of plaint
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Purushothaman Pillay Divakaran et al vs Deepti Sivan regarding injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sreenath.S vs Thankarajan et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sindhu.S et al vs Lalitha et al regarding withdrawal of suit
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Vanitha Sureshbabu Thilak vs Babu Chettiyar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won