Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.225/2007

Case between S. Geetha Devi vs Sasidharan Pandarathil alias Narayanaru Sasisekhararu et al regarding declaration of right, title and interest including possession over property.

Court
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-03-28
Duration
approximately-17 years 0 days
Case Code No.
225
Case Closed
Fri, 03/28/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

S. Geetha Devi is the plaintiff seeking a declaration of right, title, and interest over the property. The defendants include Sasidharan Pandarathil, P. Manoharan, and Udayan, Secretary of a trust, disputing the plaintiff's claims over the property.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for declaration of right, title, and possession over the plaint 'B' schedule property and also denied the request for injunction. The plaintiff was granted the right to construct a boundary as specified in the judgment.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
The plaintiff is entitled to construct a boundary using a granite foundation along the 'C-U-V-E1' line.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for declaration of right, title, and possession over the plaint 'B' schedule property and also denied the request for injunction. The plaintiff was granted the right to construct a boundary as specified in the judgment.
Key Reasoning:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership or possession over the plaint 'B' schedule property.
Why Defendant Won:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership or possession over the plaint 'B' schedule property.
Supporting Evidence
The court concluded that the plaintiff has failed to sufficiently demonstrate the necessary elements for the grant of a declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the plaint 'B' schedule property.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result; the suit is partly decreed as follows: (a) The prayer for declaration of right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff over the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is dismissed. (b) The prayer for injunction over the plaint schedule properties is also dismissed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
S. Geetha Devi
Party Age
38
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sasidharan Pandarathil alias Narayanaru Sasisekhararu
Party Age
57
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
P. Manoharan
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Udayan
Plaintiffs Documents
Power of attorney, Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 3191/1979, Partition Deed No. 1183/1995, Tax receipt dated 16.01.2007.
Defendants Documents
Partition Deed No. 1998/1959, Original Settlement Deed No.198/1988, Certified Copy of Sale Deed No. 162/1973.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. V.K. Radhakrishnan Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Kulathoor S.V. Premakumaran Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a declaration of right, title, and interest over the plaint 'B' schedule property.
Evidence:
The prayer for declaration of right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff over the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is dismissed.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff requested a permanent injunction against the defendants concerning the plaint schedule properties.
Evidence:
The prayer for injunction over the plaint schedule properties is also dismissed.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to construct a boundary on the northern boundary of the plaint 'A' schedule property.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to put up boundary on the northern boundary of the plaint ‘A’ schedule separating the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties through 'C-U-V-E1' line.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff received permission to construct a granite foundation for the boundary.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is also entitled to construct a boundary using a granite foundation along the 'C-U-V-E1' line.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document grants authority to the plaintiff's husband to act on her behalf.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document confirms the sale of the plaint 'A' schedule property in 1979.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document details the partition of property among family members, allotting the plaint 'A' schedule property to the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as evidence of the plaintiff paying property tax.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Certified copy of the Plaint in OS 2853/1990
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is part of a previous suit related to the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Certified copy of the Written Statement in OS 2853/1990
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides details of the defense put forward in the previous suit.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Certified copy of the Decree in OS 2853/1990
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document presents the judgment in the earlier suit, which is relevant to the present case.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Basic Tax Register
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides evidence related to the tax records of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Lithograph of the Plan
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows the property boundaries and layout.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: Copy of the Field Register
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides further evidence related to land records.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as evidence of the plaintiff's recent tax payments.
Reference:
Ext.A11
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as further evidence of the plaintiff's recent tax payments.
Reference:
Ext.A12
Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document provides evidence of the 1st defendant's title to a portion of property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document is part of the evidence used to establish the defendant's claim to property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document is part of the evidence establishing the defendant's ownership of property.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document provides evidence of the transfer of property ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Sale Agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document shows an agreement made regarding the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document is a formal sale deed for property related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document serves as evidence of the defendant's tax payments.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type: Thandaper Abstract
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document provides additional land registration information.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Document Type: Location Sketch
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document helps illustrate the layout of the properties involved.
Reference:
Ext.B9
Document Type: Encumbrance certificate
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document certifies the status of the property concerning any encumbrances.
Reference:
Ext.B10
Document Type: Copy of the Re-survey Plan
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document contains details of the property as per the recent survey.
Reference:
Ext.B11
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document serves as evidence of the defendant's tax payments.
Reference:
Ext.B12
Document Type: Re-Survey Plan
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document showcases the updated survey details of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B13
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document serves as evidence of the defendant's recent tax payments.
Reference:
Ext.B14
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This document is a report prepared by a commissioner relating to the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This document further elaborates on the findings related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This document adds to the evidence regarding the properties in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This document collaborates the findings from prior investigations.
Reference:
Ext.C4
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This document presents the findings of a recent commission appointed by the court.
Reference:
Ext.C5
Document Type: Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This plan illustrates the property boundaries as per the commission's report.
Reference:
Ext.C5(a)
Document Type: Field Measurement Plan
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
This document provides measurements related to the property in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.X1
Document Type: Field Measurement Plan
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
This document provides additional measurements for another relevant plot.
Reference:
Ext.X2

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2007

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Wed, 03/28/2007 - 12:00
Case Closed
Fri, 03/28/2025 - 12:00
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