Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No.1458/2024

Case between Ajanthakumar vs Archana, K.Indira regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
Court of Additional Munsiff-III
Judge
Smt. Sreelakshmi.C
Order Date
2025-09-24
Duration
approximately-8 months
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Ajanthakumar is the plaintiff seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against Archana and K.Indira to prevent them from encroaching on a pathway critical for access to his property. The defendants claim that the pathway belongs to them and that the plaintiff is attempting to unlawfully widen it.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court directed the parties to maintain the status quo regarding the pathway until the final disposal of the suit, effectively preventing any encroachment.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Status quo maintained regarding the pathway as per Ext.C1 report
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court directed the parties to maintain the status quo regarding the pathway until the final disposal of the suit, effectively preventing any encroachment.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found a prima facie case in favor of the petitioner, indicating that the balance of convenience favored maintaining the current state until a full trial could determine the rights of the parties.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The court found that the petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of the plaint A schedule property and that if the respondents are not restrained, it would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result this application is disposed by directing the parties to maintain status quo as per Ext.C1 report till the final disposal of the suit.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Ajanthakumar
Party Age
64
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Archana
Party Age
38
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
K.Indira
Party Age
75
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Partition Deed No.4047/87, Tax Receipt, Will deed No.23/1954, Certified Copy of Injunction application in OS.1449/24, Certified Copy of Order in I.A.1/24 in OS.1449/24
Defendants Documents
Copy of Sale Deed No.3754/86, Copy of Sale Deed No.1257/02/I, Agreement, Copy of Sale Deed No.2557/2000, Certified Copy of Settlement deed No.1578/10

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.T.A.Harisankar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Louis A Fernandez
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.V.Bahuleyan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Kishore Raj.K
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The application is disposed by directing the parties to maintain status quo as per Ext.C1 report.
Evidence:
In the result this application is disposed by directing the parties to maintain status quo as per Ext.C1 report till the final disposal of the suit.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The original partition deed is marked as Ext.A1, establishing the plaintiff's ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext.A2 is the land tax receipt.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Basic Tax Register
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext.A3 is the basic tax register showing the pathway details.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext.A4 are the photographs showing the lie and nature of plaint B schedule pathway.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Will Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext.A5 is the copy of Will deed No.23/1954 executed by Sri. Late K. Madhavan Pillai.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Certified Copy of Injunction Application
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext.A6 is the certified copy of injunction application filed in O.S.1449/2024 by the defendant against the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Certified copy of Order
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext.A7 is the certified copy of order in I.A.1/2024 in O.S.1449/2024 dated 14/11/2024.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Ext.B1 is the copy of Sale deed No.3754/86.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Ext.B2 is the copy of Sale deed No.1257/002/I dated 30/05/2002.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Ext.B3 is the agreement dated 25/02/1992.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Ext.B4 is the certified copy of Sale deed No.2557/2000 dated 28/08/2002.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Ext.B5 is the certified copy of Settlement deed No.1578/2010 dated 02/06/2010.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The advocate commissioner has filed commission report and it was marked as Ext.C1.
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
Case between Ajanthakumar vs Archana, K.Indira regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Ajanthakumar vs Archana, K.Indira regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Thiruvananthapuram
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Mon, 09/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Tue, 09/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

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