Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.425/2023

Case between Chithra.L vs Noorjahan regarding declaration, fixation of boundary, and permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-08-04
Duration
approximately-2 years 3 months
Case Code No.
425
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Chithra.L and her daughter Radhu, are seeking a declaration of their easementary right and an injunction against the defendant, Noorjahan, regarding property access issues. The plaintiffs allege the defendant attempted to obstruct their access to their property.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court declared that the plaintiffs have an easementary right over the contested pathway and granted them a permanent injunction against the defendant's interference.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction and declaration of easementary right.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court declared that the plaintiffs have an easementary right over the contested pathway and granted them a permanent injunction against the defendant's interference.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs established their easementary right by prescription over the property after ignoring the defendant’s claims.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs established their easementary right by prescription over the property after ignoring the defendant’s claims.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence on record clearly shows that the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title have been using the plaint 'C' and 'D' schedule properties continuously, openly, peaceably and as of right for ingress and egress to the plaint 'A' schedule property for a period exceeding 31 years.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result; (a) The prayer for fixation of boundary stands dismissed. (b) It is hereby declared that the plaintiffs have an easement by prescription over the plaint 'D' schedule property which forms part of plaint ‘B’ schedule which is in continuation of plaint ‘C’ schedule to reach the plaint ‘A’ schedule property.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Chithra.L
Party Age
54
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Radhu
Party Age
31
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Noorjahan
Party Age
70
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Sale deed No. 1981/1992, Tax receipt
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. P. Rahim
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.R. Rahmathullah
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt.L.Inku Rahmath
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Declaration of easement by prescription over the plaint 'D' schedule property.
Evidence:
It is hereby declared that the plaintiffs have an easement by prescription over the plaint 'D' schedule property.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Permanent injunction against the defendant from obstructing the use of the plaint 'D' schedule property.
Evidence:
Let the defendant and her henchmen are hereby perpetually restrained from damaging the plaint 'D' schedule pathway.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Permanent injunction against the defendant from trespassing into the plaint 'A' schedule property.
Evidence:
Let the defendant and her henchmen be perpetually restrained from trespassing into the plaint 'A' schedule property.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Partly Granted
Description:
Prayer for fixation of boundary was dismissed.
Evidence:
The prayer for fixation of boundary stands dismissed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The original sale deed establishes the plaintiffs' ownership of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The tax receipt evidences that the plaintiffs are paying land tax for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Commissioner Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The court exhibit provides details regarding the property boundary and pathways.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The rough sketch aids in understanding the layout and access to the properties involved.
Reference:
Ext.C1(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
2023

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Tue, 02/14/2023 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Fri, 08/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 08/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

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