Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No. 952/2024

Case between C.Gopalakrishnan Nair et al vs Rekha Sreejith regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF -II
Judge
Smt. Sreelakshmi.C
Order Date
2025-05-26
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The petitioners, C.Gopalakrishnan Nair and Sajitha, are seeking a temporary injunction against the defendant, Rekha Sreejith, to prevent her from heightening a compound wall that obstructs their easement rights. They claim that the defendant's actions have caused damage to their property and seek relief through this application.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court directed all parties to maintain status quo regarding the property pending final disposal of the suit. No costs were ordered.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Status quo order until final disposal of the suit
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The court directed all parties to maintain status quo regarding the property pending final disposal of the suit. No costs were ordered.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found it necessary to maintain the status quo to protect the plaint schedule property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The court must weight one need against another and determine where the balance of convenience lies.

Judgment Evidence:

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

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
C.Gopalakrishnan Nair
Party Age
66
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sajitha
Party Age
57
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Rekha Sreejith
Party Age
37
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Settlement Deed No.1381/2003, Original building Tax Receipt, Original order by the City Corporation, Copy of Settlement Deed No.995/1985, Stop memo issued by the City Corporation
Defendants Documents
Copy of Settlement Deed, Building permit obtained from corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, Notice issued from Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, Reply given by the defendant to the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, Copy of Police complaint filed before SHO, Vanchiyoor Police Station

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. U. S. Ganesh Kumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. U. S. Ganesh Kumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioners sought a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from heightening further the compound wall.
Evidence:
Considering the nature of dispute and the documents produced, I am of the opinion that it is necessary in the interest of justice to pass a status quo order in order to ensure preservation of the plaint schedule property.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The original settlement deed is marked as Ext.A1.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The original building tax receipt is marked as Ext.A2.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Order by the City Corporation
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The original order dated 18/06/2024 issued by the City Corporation to the defendant is marked as Ext.A3.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The copy of settlement deed No.995/1985 is marked as Ext.A4.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Stop Memo
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext.A5 is the stop memo dated 27/02/2024 issued by the City Corporation.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The copy of settlement deed is marked as Ext.B1.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Building Permit
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The building permit obtained from Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram dated 12/06/2023 is marked as Ext.B2.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Notice
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Ext.B3 is the notice dated 18/06/2024 issued from Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Reply
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Ext.B4 is the reply dated 22/06/2024 given by the defendant to the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Police Complaint
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Ext.B5 is the copy of police complaint dated 22/05/2024 filed before SHO, Vanchiyoor Police Station.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The commission report and rough sketch are marked as Ext.C1 and C1(a).
Reference:
Ext.C1

Case Classification

Case Type
Injunction
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between C.Gopalakrishnan Nair et al vs Rekha Sreejith regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between C.Gopalakrishnan Nair et al vs Rekha Sreejith regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Thiruvananthapuram
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Thu, 05/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sat, 05/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between T. Sathyan vs T.V. Bahulayan Panicker regarding an injunction.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Injunction Plaintiff Won
Case between Venkittaraman vs V. Subramaniayan et al regarding injunction
Court of Additional Munsiff-I
Injunction Plaintiff Won
Case between Smitha @ Salini vs Soumya. L regarding temporary injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I
Injunction Plaintiff Won
Case between Kootuvilakath Sakkeena Beevi M. vs Rajan regarding injunction.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Injunction Plaintiff Won
Case between Anitha Kumari.L.K et al vs Madhu.S et al regarding an ad-interim injunction.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF- III
Injunction Plaintiff Won