Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No.1718/2024

Case between Gopakumar.P.M vs Anil Kumar et al regarding injunction relief.

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Judge
Smt. Sreelakshmi.C
Order Date
2025-07-08
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Gopakumar.P.M, the plaintiff, is seeking injunction relief regarding property he claims ownership of. The defendants, including Anil Kumar and others, are contesting the plaintiff's claims and alleging they have previously bought property rights.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court directed both parties to maintain status quo concerning the plaint schedule property and dismissed the defendant's application for an interim mandatory injunction.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Status quo regarding plaint schedule property to be maintained.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court directed both parties to maintain status quo concerning the plaint schedule property and dismissed the defendant's application for an interim mandatory injunction.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found it necessary to preserve the status quo of the property pending the final trial.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
Considering the nature of dispute and the documents produced, it is necessary in the interest of justice to pass a status quo order with respect to I.A.1/2025.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, both parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the plaint schedule property as reported by the advocate commissioner in Ext.C1 report shall be maintained by both parties till the disposal of the suit.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Gopakumar.P.M
Party Age
70
Relation
S/o.late Madhavan Pillai
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Anil Kumar
Party Age
62
Relation
S/o.Krishnan Nair
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Geethakumari.P.S
Party Age
53
Relation
D/o.Sarojini Amma
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Vishnu S Nair
Party Age
33
Relation
S/o.Sasidharan
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of Partition deed No.2084/1984, Tax Receipt, Copy of FIR, Copy of Complaint.
Defendants Documents
Copy of Sale deed No.1991/2023, Copy of Sale agreement, Copy of agreement, Copy of Tax receipt.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.P.A.Sivakumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Harikrishnanan.G.I
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.Dipu.D
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
An order to maintain status quo of plaint schedule property until disposal of the suit.
Evidence:
Both parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the plaint schedule property as reported by the advocate commissioner in Ext.C1 report shall be maintained by both parties till the disposal of the suit.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Request for the defendant to reconstruct the B schedule structure.
Evidence:
I.A.6/2024 is dismissed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document establishes the plaintiff's ownership and possession of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document pertains to the tax payments for the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: FIR
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This FIR was registered against the trespass and demolition by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The copy of the complaint filed against the defendants for their illegal actions.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: FIR
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is an FIR related to the actions taken by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The document evidences the transfer of 6 cents of property from plaintiff to the 3rd defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Sale Agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
It records the agreement between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant concerning property sale.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document highlights an agreement related to the pathway assigned in favor of Divya V.S.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The document pertains to tax payments for the property of defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The report contains findings about the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1

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 Gopakumar.P.M vs Anil Kumar et al regarding injunction relief.
Case Code Year
Case between Gopakumar.P.M vs Anil Kumar et al regarding injunction relief.

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Tue, 07/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Thu, 07/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
70%

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