Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.1236/2020

Case between Divya Kumar.P vs Peethambaran et al regarding recovery of possession and mesne profits.

Court
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-07-28
Duration
approximately-5 years 1 month
Case Code No.
1236
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Divya Kumar.P is seeking recovery of possession of her property from her parents and sister, who are currently residing there. The plaintiff contends that the defendants are in illegal possession and has filed this suit after her attempts to evict them were unsuccessful.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court partly decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, allowing her to recover possession of the property from the defendants, who are her parents and sister. The claim for mesne profits was dismissed.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court partly decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, allowing her to recover possession of the property from the defendants, who are her parents and sister. The claim for mesne profits was dismissed.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff proved her ownership and the defendants' unlawful possession.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff proved her ownership and the defendants' unlawful possession.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff demonstrated her absolute ownership of the property and the unlawful possession of the defendants.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is partly decreed as follows: (a)The plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants 1 to 3. The defendants 1 to 3 are directed to vacate further plaint schedule property and hand over vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within three months from the date of this judgment.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Divya Kumar.P
Party Age
38
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Peethambaran
Party Age
70
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Prasanna
Party Age
59
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Vidya
Party Age
34
Relation
D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified Copy of Sale Deed No. 424/2013, Tax receipt, Copy of request given to the Tahsildar, Copy of reply given by the Tahsildar, Copy of the complaint.
Defendants Documents
Purchase Agreement and The portion of statement in Ext.B1, Receipt.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Rajeev
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. Bincy Job
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. R. Vidhyadharan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Possession
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff was granted possession of the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendants 1 to 3 are directed to vacate further plaint schedule property and hand over vacant the possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within three months from the date of this judgment.
Relief Type: Mesne Profits
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The plaintiff sought mesne profits from the defendants for the period of unlawful possession.
Evidence:
Accordingly, in the absence of reliable material on record, the claim for mesne profits amounting to 1,74,000/- is not liable to be allowed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the plaintiff's ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supports the claim of ownership by providing proof of property tax.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Copy of request given to the Tahsildar
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrates the plaintiff's attempts to address issues with the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Copy of reply given by the Tahsildar
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further supports the plaintiff's claims related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Copy of the complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates the steps taken by the plaintiff prior to filing the lawsuit.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Purchase Agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Submitted by the defendants to establish their claim of ownership over the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Related to the defendants' claims concerning the property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provides evidence regarding the possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Assists in understanding the layout and possession details of the property.
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
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2020

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Tue, 07/28/2020 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Tue, 07/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Thu, 07/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Shibu et al vs Bindhu et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and other consequential reliefs.
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Dayanandan vs Anila Kumari et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Shaji P.R vs Rajani regarding removal of encroachment and restoration of pathway
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Syed Mohammed Sadik vs Suresh Babu. R.C regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and consequential reliefs.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Thulaseedharan.B. vs Bindu et al regarding temporary prohibitory injunction
Court of Additional Munsiff (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won