Case Summary
The plaintiffs, K. Rajendran and Santhamma, are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants, Sudha.S, J.Remani, and J. Premalatha, to restrain them from falsely describing the width of a pathway in their property deeds. The case revolves around a dispute over the actual width of the pathway which the plaintiffs allege is being misrepresented by the defendants.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The respondents are restrained from executing and registering any deeds by encroaching upon, annexing or including any portion of the plaint ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties until the disposal of the suit.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court partly allowed the application for injunction, restraining the defendants from executing and registering any deeds that encroach upon the plaintiffs' property until the suit is disposed of.
Why Plaintiff Won:
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Supporting Evidence
The court found that there exists a prima facie case in favour of the applicants regarding the respondents’ alleged attempt to create documents by enlarging the width of the disputed pathway beyond its actual and lawful extent, thereby encroaching upon the plaint schedule properties.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result: The application is partly allowed as follows: (a)The respondents are restrained from executing and registering any deeds by encroaching upon, annexing or including any portion of the plaint ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties until the disposal of the suit.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- K. Rajendran
- Party Age
- 74
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Santhamma
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sudha.S
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- J.Remani
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- J. Premalatha
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Sale deed No. 1638/1981, Copy of Sale Deed No. 2186/1989
Defendants Documents
Nil
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Jose Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Biju P.S
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Partly Granted
Description:
The applicants sought a permanent injunction to prevent the respondents from registering deeds that misrepresent the width of the pathway.
Evidence:
The application is partly allowed as follows: (a) The respondents are restrained from executing and registering any deeds by encroaching upon, annexing or including any portion of the plaint ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties until the disposal of the suit.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the Sale Deed No. 1638/1981 produced by the applicants to assert their ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the Sale Deed No. 2186/1989 produced by the applicants to assert their ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Photographs
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Photographs submitted by the respondents to show alleged encroachment by the applicants.
Reference:
Ext.B1 series
Document Type:
Commission report and Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The report and sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner indicating the measurements and nature of the disputed pathway.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission report and Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Supplementary sketch showing variations in the width of the pathway referenced in the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
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
2025