Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No.1141/2015

Case between E.Reethammal vs K. Sudha regarding fixation of boundary.

Court
THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Judge
Smt. Sreelakshmi.C
Order Date
2025-07-29
Duration
approximately-9 years 8 months
Case Closed
Tue, 07/29/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, E.Reethammal, filed a suit against the defendant, K. Sudha, for fixation of the boundary of her property. The defendant had reportedly caused disturbance and damage to the plaintiff's property boundaries.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, allowing her to establish a boundary as per the court's directive. The counter claim made by the defendant was dismissed.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The plaintiff is entitled to put up boundary on the stipulated line.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, allowing her to establish a boundary as per the court's directive. The counter claim made by the defendant was dismissed.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established her case through testimonies and documentary evidence, which the defendant failed to counter.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff established her case through testimonies and documentary evidence, which the defendant failed to counter.
Supporting Evidence
Thus from the uncontroverted testimonies of PW1 to PW3 and Ext.A1 to A6 series and C1 and C2 series the plaintiff had established her case warranting the grant of reliefs sought for in the suit.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as follows: ‘FJC’ line in Ext.C2(a) plan is fixed as the boundary separating plaint A schedule property with that of plaint B schedule property.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
E.Reethammal
Party Age
78
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
K. Sudha
Party Age
40
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Release Deed No.2451/1994, Tax receipt.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.G.K.Namboothiry
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. V.G. Giri kumar
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Arun.I.Sreedhar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Counter Claim Petitioner
Advocate Name
Sri. V.Vivekanandan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff sought to fix the boundary separating both properties.
Evidence:
The suit is decreed with costs and 'FJC' line in Ext.C2(a) plan is fixed as the boundary.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Defendant's counter claim to fix the southern boundary and construct a wall.
Evidence:
The counter claim is dismissed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Original Release Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves the plaintiff's ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirms property tax payments for the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Certified copy of Order in OS 728/2016
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows prior legal action related to the same property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Copy of Plaint in OS 728/2016
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Relates to the previous suit filed by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Copies of Complaint and Acknowledgment receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Documents filed with police regarding disturbances caused by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A5 series
Document Type: Certified copy of Final report in CC No.44/2021 and CC 45/21
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates ongoing criminal proceedings related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A6 series
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Document prepared by the advocate commissioner as part of the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Illustrates the boundary as determined by the court.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Further details related to the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Visual representation of the boundary lines.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)

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 E.Reethammal vs K. Sudha regarding fixation of boundary.
Case Code Year
Case between E.Reethammal vs K. Sudha regarding fixation of boundary.

Quick Facts

Location
Thiruvananthapuram
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Wed, 07/29/2015 - 12:00
Case Closed
Tue, 07/29/2025 - 12:00
From
Tue, 07/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Thu, 07/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

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