Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No.1277/2016

Case between Dr. S.Krishnan et al vs Smt. Ammini regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction

Court
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Judge
Smt.Sreelakshmi. C
Order Date
2025-06-30
Duration
approximately-9 years 2 months
Case Closed
Mon, 06/30/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Dr. S.Krishnan and Arya Sreedharan, are seeking relief against the defendant, Smt. Ammini, for unauthorized construction on a boundary wall separating their properties. The court found that the defendant's construction lacked necessary permits and constituted trespass.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendant from unauthorized construction and directing her to dismantle the constructed structures.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendant is restrained from making any further unauthorized constructions and directed to dismantle the structures within 2 months.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendant from unauthorized construction and directing her to dismantle the constructed structures.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court established that the defendant's construction constituted trespass and violated building regulations.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court established that the defendant's construction constituted trespass and violated building regulations.
Supporting Evidence
The defendant's construction lacked the necessary permissions and was deemed an unauthorized alteration of a party wall, violating both legal rights and municipal regulations.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1) The defendant is restrained from making any further unauthorized constructions within the property of the defendant or putting up any new constructions abutting the southern boundary wall of the plaint A schedule property.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Dr. S.Krishnan
Party Age
50
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Arya Sreedharan
Party Age
34
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Smt. Ammini
Party Age
70
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Sale deed No.1013/2005, Certified copy of Sale deed No.1014/2005, Certified copy of Sale deed No.1/2010, Copy of complaint dated 03.06.2016, Copy of stop memo dated 16.06.2016
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. V.Suresh
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. T. Hari Kumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendant is restrained from making any further unauthorized constructions within the property or putting up new constructions abutting the southern boundary wall.
Evidence:
The defendant is restrained from making any further unauthorized constructions within the property of the defendant or putting up any new constructions abutting the southern boundary wall of the plaint A schedule property or making any constructions in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and Kerala Municipality Building Rules 1999.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendant is directed to dismantle and remove the plaint B schedule structures.
Evidence:
The defendant is directed to dismantle and remove the plaint B schedule structures within a period of 2 months from the date of decree.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs are entitled to recover costs of the suit.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are entitled to realise the cost of the suit from the defendant and his assets.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale deed No.1013/2005, showing ownership of plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale deed No.1014/2005, showing ownership of plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale deed No.1/2010, showing ownership of plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of complaint dated 03.06.2016 filed regarding unlawful construction by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Stop Memo
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of stop memo dated 16.06.2016 issued against the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Report regarding the alleged construction carried out on the southern compound wall of plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Another commission report and expert report regarding the construction on the southern compound wall.
Reference:
Ext.C2

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Dr. S.Krishnan et al vs Smt. Ammini regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Dr. S.Krishnan et al vs Smt. Ammini regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Sat, 05/28/2016 - 12:00
Case Closed
Mon, 06/30/2025 - 12:00
From
Sun, 06/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 06/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

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
Case between Biji.R vs Sheeja regarding specific performance
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won