Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No.1063/2020

Case between C.T.Sebastian et al vs Annieamma Varghese regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Judge
Smt.Sreelakshmi.C
Order Date
2025-01-27
Duration
approximately-4 years 11 months 21 days
Case Closed
Mon, 01/27/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, C.T.Sebastian and his wife Annie, have filed a suit against the defendant Annieamma Varghese for a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent illegal construction on their common boundary wall. The plaintiffs claim they are in absolute possession of the property and allege that the defendant is trying to raise the height of the boundary wall unlawfully.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit was dismissed as the court found insufficient evidence to support the plaintiffs' claim for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant's alleged illegal construction. The court did not find proof that the southern boundary wall belonged to the plaintiffs.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed as the court found insufficient evidence to support the plaintiffs' claim for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant's alleged illegal construction. The court did not find proof that the southern boundary wall belonged to the plaintiffs.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to prove that the southern boundary wall belonged to them, as there was insufficient evidence to support their claim.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs failed to prove that the southern boundary wall belonged to them, as there was insufficient evidence to support their claim.
Supporting Evidence
The available evidence is not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant and her agents and henchmen from raising the height of southern boundary wall of the schedule property.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
C.T.Sebastian
Party Age
60
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Annie
Party Age
56
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Annieamma Varghese
Party Age
68
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified Copy of Sale Deed No. 526/1992, Original Tax receipt, Building Tax Receipt
Defendants Documents
Attested copy of Sale Deed No. 648/1993, Copy of Tax receipt, Copy of complaint to the Police Station

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. V.S. Bhasurendran Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. M. Kesavankutty Nair
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. G.K.Namboothiri
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. V. Sambu Namboothiri
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from making illegal construction.
Evidence:
The available evidence is not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale deed pertaining to the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original tax receipt dated 15/07/2009 pertaining to the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Building tax receipt dated 26/08/2020 related to the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Attested copy of Sale deed pertaining to the property purchased by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Tax receipt dated 15/06/2020 related to the property of the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of the complaint dated 07/10/2020 filed by the defendant before the police station.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report ascertaining the lie and nature of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch related to the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Additional commission report regarding the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C2

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 C.T.Sebastian et al vs Annieamma Varghese regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between C.T.Sebastian et al vs Annieamma Varghese regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 12:00
Case Closed
Mon, 01/27/2025 - 12:00
From
Wed, 01/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 01/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

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