Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.2098/2011

Case between V. Chandramathi et al vs V. Chandramathi et al regarding joint compromise decree.

Court
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-01-06
Duration
approximately-13 years
Case Code No.
2098
Case Closed
Mon, 01/06/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves a joint compromise petition between several plaintiffs and defendants. The court found the terms of the compromise lawful and decreed both suits as per those terms.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed both OS.2098/2011 and OS.31/2012 as per the lawful terms of the compromise petition filed by the parties.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed both OS.2098/2011 and OS.31/2012 as per the lawful terms of the compromise petition filed by the parties.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The terms of the compromise petition were found to be lawful.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The terms of the compromise petition were found to be lawful.
Supporting Evidence
The terms of the compromise petition found lawful.

Judgment Evidence:

Therefore, OS.2098/2011 and OS.31/2012 are decreed as per the terms of the compromise. The compromise petition shall form part of the decree.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
V. Chandramathi
Party Age
61
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
P. Thulaseedharan
Party Age
56
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
V. Vimala
Party Age
53
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
V. Sarojam
Party Age
52
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
P. Rajan
Party Age
51
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
V. Usha
Party Age
46
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
C. Appu
Party Age
71
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Udayakumar
Party Age
40
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Murukan
Party Age
55
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Kalpakam
Party Age
58
Plaintiffs Documents
Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in OP(c) No. 3005/2015 dated 12-11-2024.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. G. Rajeev
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. Salini R.S
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Smt. Vinusha. M.V
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Rajeev S.S
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. S.R. Presith
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The suits OS.2098/2011 and OS.31/2012 were decreed as per the terms of the compromise.
Evidence:
the terms of the compromise petition found lawful. Hence, OS.2098/2011 and OS.31/2012 are decreed as per the terms of the compromise.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Judgment
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The court used the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in OP(c) No. 3005/2015 as a basis for its decision.
Reference:
null
Document Type: Compromise petition
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
The court decreed the suits as per the terms of the compromise petition filed by the parties.
Reference:
null

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
2011

Case Flags

Out-of-Court Settlement

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Sat, 01/01/2011 - 12:00
Case Closed
Mon, 01/06/2025 - 12:00
From
Wed, 01/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 01/31/2025 - 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