Case Summary
The plaintiff, Shibila, is seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, Murugan, Kunjumol, and Sunitha, to prevent them from trespassing into her property. The court has heard the case and delivered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit has been decreed in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from trespassing onto the plaint schedule property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff proved ownership and possession over the plaint schedule property with unchallenged evidence.
The plaintiff proved ownership and possession over the plaint schedule property with unchallenged evidence.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff proved ownership and possession over the plaint schedule property with unchallenged evidence.
The plaintiff proved ownership and possession over the plaint schedule property with unchallenged evidence.
Supporting Evidence
From the oral and documentary evidence adduced from the side of plaintiff, the plaintiffs’ ownership and possession over the plaint A schedule property is proved. The evidence of plaintiff remains unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve PW1.
Judgment Evidence:
The suit is decreed as follows: (I) The defendant is restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property through its northern boundary or commit any waste therein or illegally create a new pathway through the plaint schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Shibila
- Party Age
- 43
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Murugan
- Party Age
- 46
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kunjumol
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sunitha
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Sale Deed No. 2028/2000, Original Tax Receipt, Copy of Judgment in OS 625/2014
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.G.S. Rajeev Chempakassery
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Govinda.B.S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt.Reena.T.K
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt.Souparnika.R.J
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendant is restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property through its northern boundary or commit any waste therein or illegally create a new pathway through the plaint schedule property.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves the plaintiff's ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supports the plaintiff's claim of ownership and possession.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Judgment Copy
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Relates to previous case that establishes the plaintiff's rights.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Added as evidence to support the plaintiff's claims.
Reference:
Ext.C1
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
2024