Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.396/2013

Case between Bindhu.T vs Prasad regarding fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Judge
Smt.Sreelakshmi. C
Order Date
2025-03-29
Duration
approximately-12 years
Case Code No.
396
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Bindhu.T, seeks a decree for the fixation of boundaries and a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, Prasad, who is encroaching on her property. The defendant contends that there has been no encroachment and seeks dismissal of the suit.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The plaintiff is granted the right to construct a boundary wall separating her property from the defendant's property and is awarded a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant. Additionally, the plaintiff is entitled to recover costs from the defendant.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Plaintiff is entitled to construct a boundary wall and has been granted a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The plaintiff is granted the right to construct a boundary wall separating her property from the defendant's property and is awarded a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant. Additionally, the plaintiff is entitled to recover costs from the defendant.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established her case through uncontroverted evidence and documentation.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff established her case through uncontroverted evidence and documentation.
Supporting Evidence
From the uncontroverted testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6 documents, the plaintiff had established her case warranting the grant of the reliefs sought for in the suit.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1) The plaintiff is entitled to put up the boundary through ‘LONF’ line as shown in Ext.C2(a) plan and to construct the compound wall through the boundary line to a height of 5 feet using bricks and cement at the joint expenses of plaintiff and defendant.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Bindhu.T
Party Age
36
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Prasad
Party Age
45
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Sale Deed No.2021/1996, Original Sale Deed No.1088/2000, Tax Receipt, Tax Receipt, Resurvey sketch of Plaint schedule properties, Certified copy of Sale deed No. 1089/2000
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. K.S. Satheesh kumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.Poonthura G.Soman
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Smt.Rakhi.V.R
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into plaint A-1 and A-2 schedule properties.
Evidence:
Permanent prohibitory injunction is granted restraining the defendant from putting or making any construction along or near the boundary of plaint A-1 and A-2 and plaint B schedule properties in violation to the Kerala Municipal Building Rules or from trespassing into the plaint A-1 and A-2 schedule property and interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the plaint A-2 and A-2 schedule property by the plaintiff and her family.
Relief Type: Possession
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to put up the boundary through ‘LONF’ line and construct the compound wall.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to put up the boundary through ‘LONF’ line as shown in Ext.C2(a) plan and to construct the compound wall through the boundary line to a height of 5 feet using bricks and cement at the joint expenses of plaintiff and defendant.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is entitled to realize the cost 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: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original Sale Deed No.2021/1996 obtained by the husband of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original Sale Deed No.1088/2000 obtained by the husband of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt pertaining to plaint schedule item No.1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt pertaining to plaint schedule item No.2 property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Resurvey Sketch
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Resurvey sketch of plaint schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale deed No.1089/2000.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report detailing the boundaries and condition of the properties.
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 concerning boundary demarcation.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch accompanying the second commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2013

Quick Facts

Location
Thiruvananthapuram
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Mon, 03/18/2013 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 03/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between R. Saroja vs Sivathanu @ Murugan et al regarding partition of plaint schedule properties.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
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