Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Hari.V.Pisharodi and Jayan.V.Pisharodi, are seeking to set aside a prior order regarding eviction obtained by the defendant, T.S.Rajagopalan, who claims ownership based on certain legal documents. The plaintiffs argue that these documents are fraudulent and that they have rights to the property based on a will from their father.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, stating that it was not maintainable due to being barred by res judicata and limitation. It upheld the prior rulings confirming the defendant's status as the landlord.
Key Reasoning:
The court found that the issues raised by the plaintiffs were already adjudicated in prior suits, making the current suit untenable.
The court found that the issues raised by the plaintiffs were already adjudicated in prior suits, making the current suit untenable.
Why Defendant Won:
The court found that the issues raised by the plaintiffs were already adjudicated in prior suits, making the current suit untenable.
The court found that the issues raised by the plaintiffs were already adjudicated in prior suits, making the current suit untenable.
Supporting Evidence
The allegations of forgery and fraud with respect to the documents of tenancy and counterfoils produced should have been raised in such a former suit.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Hari.V.Pisharodi
- Party Age
- 43
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Jayan.V.Pisharodi
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- T.S.Rajagopalan
- Party Age
- 74
Plaintiffs Documents
Nil Copy of RCP No.38/12, Copy of Order of RCP 38/12, Copy of RCA 29/2013 and 32/2013, Supreme Court proceedings, High Court Judgment in RCA 29,32/13
Defendants Documents
True Copy of Supreme Court Order
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.S.Suresh Babu
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Muralidharan Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs requested for setting aside the decree in RCP 38/2012.
Evidence:
In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs prayed for a permanent prohibitory injunction against alienation of the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
Hence, the suit is dismissed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
RCP Order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The court considered the order in RCP 38/2012 while adjudicating the current suit.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
RCA Judgments
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Judgments in RCA 29/2013 and RCA 32/2013 were referenced to support the plaintiffs' arguments.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Supreme Court Order
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The Supreme Court proceedings were cited regarding the landlord-tenant relationship.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2019