Case Summary
The petitioners, Gopakumar.S and Jalaja Kumari, are seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the counter petitioners regarding their property boundary. The counter petitioners, including Reshmi Vasanthakumar and Vasanthakumar, are accused of filling their property which could damage the petitioners’ property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Partial
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court modified the previous order and allowed the counter petitioners to complete their R.C.C retaining wall while restraining them from making constructions above the existing boundary wall.
Key Reasoning:
The court found it necessary for the counter petitioners to complete their retaining wall while protecting the existing property from potential harm.
The court found it necessary for the counter petitioners to complete their retaining wall while protecting the existing property from potential harm.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
Upon perusal of relevant documents and argument, the court concluded a balanced approach was needed to protect both parties' interests.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the counter petitioners are restrained from making constructions above the petition D scheduled property. But as the circumstances seem necessary, the defendants are allowed to complete the new R.C.C retaining wall as per the supervision of commissioner and an Engineer expert.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Gopakumar.S
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Jalaja Kumari
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Reshmi Vasanthakumar
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vasanthakumar
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Binu Kumar
- Relation
- C/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copies of title deeds of petition A schedule property, Tax receipt.
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of sale deed, Building permit issue, Original proposed building plan approved.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Krishnaprasad S.R.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.G. Rajeev
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Partly Granted
Description:
The petitioners sought to restrain the counter petitioners from filling up property and further construction.
Evidence:
the ad interim injunction ordered dated 01.11.2024 is hereby modified and ordered as follows: The counter petitioners are restrained from making constructions above the petition D scheduled property.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
These documents establish the title of the petitioners to the petition A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1 to A4
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows the tax paid for a portion of the petition A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This is a complaint filed by the 1st petitioner regarding the issues with the boundary wall.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is a notice directed to the 1st counter petitioner to strengthen the boundary wall.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This complaint addresses the filling of soil and potential threat to the boundary wall.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This is another notice regarding the non-compliance of prior directions to clear the cracks of the boundary wall.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document establishes the title of the counter petitioners to the petition B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document shows the tax paid by the counter petitioners for the property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Building Permit
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This permit was issued for constructing the building in petition B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Building Plan
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This approved plan is for the building to be constructed in petition B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Completed Building Plan
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document verifies the construction completed in accordance to the approved plan.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This notice directed the 1st counter petitioner to strengthen the boundary wall.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This notice concerns the construction of a new R.C.C retaining wall.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type:
Structural Design Certificate
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This is the structural approval for the retaining wall construction.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report and sketch show observations about the property and the damages.
Reference:
Ext.C1, C1(a)
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 Gopakumar.S vs Reshmi Vasanthakumar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Gopakumar.S vs Reshmi Vasanthakumar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.