Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No.1940/2000

Case between Bhuvanendran vs Soman Nadar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Judge
Smt.Sreelakshmi. C
Order Date
2025-03-29
Duration
approximately-24 years 6 months
Case Closed
Sat, 03/29/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Bhuvanendran, the plaintiff, is seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against Soman Nadar and his legal heirs regarding the maintenance of lateral support to his property and the removal of bamboo plants causing damage to his property. The defendants have disputed the claims.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to maintain the lateral support for the plaintiff’s property and remove the bamboo plants within three months.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction to remove bamboo plants.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to maintain the lateral support for the plaintiff’s property and remove the bamboo plants within three months.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established the need for lateral support to his property from the defendants’ property and the damages being caused to his granite foundation due to the bamboo plants.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff established the need for lateral support to his property from the defendants’ property and the damages being caused to his granite foundation due to the bamboo plants.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence from various commission reports confirmed that the bamboo plants were causing damage to the granite foundation of the plaintiff's property and that the plaintiff has rights to lateral support.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1) The defendant is restrained from removing earth from the northern portion of plaint B schedule without constructing a retaining wall, and 2) The defendant is directed to cut and remove the bamboo plants throughout the northern portion of the plaint B schedule property within 3 months.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Bhuvanendran
Party Age
47
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Soman Nadar
Party Age
56
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Jagadamma
Party Age
68
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Bindu
Party Age
45
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Biju.S
Party Age
44
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Biji.S.
Party Age
42
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified Copy of Gift Deed No. 2244/1983, Original Tax Receipt dated 21.05.1992, Original Tax Receipt dated 10.11.2000
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. M.R.Anandakuttan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Smt.D.O.Sakunthala Devi
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Smt.Manju.L.R
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Restrain the defendant from removing earth from the northern portion of plaint B schedule.
Evidence:
The defendant is restrained from removing earth from the northern portion of plaint B schedule without constructing a retaining wall at the northern boundary of B schedule upto the level of A schedule or from doing anything which will destroy or remove the lateral support of A schedule.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Directing the defendant to cut and remove the bamboo plants throughout the northern portion of plaint B schedule.
Evidence:
The defendant is directed by a decree of mandatory injunction to cut and remove the bamboo plants throughout the northern portion of the plaint B schedule property within 3 months from the date of decree.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff entitled to realize the costs of the suit from the defendant.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to realise the cost of the suit from the defendant and his assets.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Gift Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the gift deed demonstrating the plaintiff's ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original tax receipt related to the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original tax receipt related to the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report assessing the properties involved in the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch accompanying the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Second commission report providing further details on the properties.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch accompanying the second commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Third commission report assessing the properties involved.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch accompanying the third commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C3(a)
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report providing recommendations regarding the retaining wall.
Reference:
Ext.C4 series
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Final commission report detailing the cost and need for construction related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.C5 series

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Right of easement of lateral support
Case Code
Case between Bhuvanendran vs Soman Nadar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Bhuvanendran vs Soman Nadar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Wed, 03/29/2000 - 12:00
Case Closed
Sat, 03/29/2025 - 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 Sarathchandran Nair.J vs Government of India et al regarding boundary measurement and injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Nazarudeen. A vs Tom.D et al regarding suit for declaration, recovery of possession, and injunction
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Aravindan Nair et al vs Ramachandran Nair et al regarding partition and permanent prohibitory injunction.
THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Ramesan vs Sujatha et al regarding partition of ancestral property.
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Biji.R vs Sheeja regarding specific performance
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won