Case Summary
The case involves a dispute between Satheedevi and multiple defendants regarding the fixation of boundaries of property and seeking injunctions against encroachment. The plaintiff claims that the defendants have encroached upon her property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found the suit maintainable and dismissed the contentions raised by the defendants. The suit was filed for boundary fixation and injunction due to encroachment by the defendants.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court concluded that the earlier suit was dismissed for default, allowing the plaintiff to file this fresh suit.
The court concluded that the earlier suit was dismissed for default, allowing the plaintiff to file this fresh suit.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court concluded that the earlier suit was dismissed for default, allowing the plaintiff to file this fresh suit.
The court concluded that the earlier suit was dismissed for default, allowing the plaintiff to file this fresh suit.
Supporting Evidence
On the perusal of records, it is clear that, the earlier suit was not dismissed as withdrawn under Order 23 Rule 3.
Judgment Evidence:
Therefore, a subsequent suit filed would not be hit by Order 23 Rule 4 when the earlier suit was dismissed for default.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Satheedevi
- Party Age
- 67
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Balakrishnan @ Gopalakrishnan
- Party Age
- 68
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sukumari
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sreejith
- Party Age
- 33
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sreeja
- Party Age
- 30
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Prathapachandran
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P.T. Geevarghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Praju K. Paul
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Nezil Muhammad
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- G. Govindan Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- George Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to dismantle constructions made by the defendant on the plaintiff's property.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for.
Relief Type:
Perpetual Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff requested perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing and obstructing access to the plaint scheduled properties.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for.
Relief Type:
Fixation of Boundary
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought to fix the boundaries between the properties of the plaintiff and defendants.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was referenced to establish the partition of property that the plaintiff claims.
Reference:
No. 4812/06
Document Type:
Title deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was mentioned to show the transfer of property to the plaintiff from her husband.
Reference:
No. 4350/98
Document Type:
Title deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
These documents were cited to claim that the defendants had received property under these deeds.
Reference:
No. 5327/15 and 1230/16
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Oral evidence was considered regarding the disputes and contentions presented by both parties.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Satheedevi vs Balakrishnan @ Gopalakrishnan et al regarding boundary fixation and injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Satheedevi vs Balakrishnan @ Gopalakrishnan et al regarding boundary fixation and injunction