Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No.1003/2024

Case between Omana et al vs Sivakumar et al regarding boundary and injunction.

Court
THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Judge
Smt.Sreelakshmi. C
Order Date
2025-07-07
Duration
Case Closed
Mon, 07/07/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Omana and Shalini, are seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, Sivakumar, Geetha Kumari, and Vasanthakumari, regarding trespass and the construction of compound walls on their property. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have been illegally trespassing onto their property.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, allowing them to construct boundary walls and restraining the defendants from trespassing. The plaintiffs are also entitled to recover costs of the suit from the defendants.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Allows the plaintiffs to construct compound walls and restrains defendants from trespassing.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, allowing them to construct boundary walls and restraining the defendants from trespassing. The plaintiffs are also entitled to recover costs of the suit from the defendants.
Why Plaintiff Won:
Plaintiffs' ownership and possession over the plaint schedule property is proved.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Plaintiffs' ownership and possession over the plaint schedule property is proved.
Supporting Evidence
From the oral and documentary evidence adduced from the side of plaintiff, the plaintiffs’ ownership and possession over the plaint schedule property is proved.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: (i) The plaintiffs are allowed to put up compound walls with granite foundation and bricks on the existing northern and western boundary of the plaint A and B schedule properties. (ii) The defendants are restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties and from creating any way through the plaint schedule properties. (iii) Considering the facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to realise costs of the suit from the defendants.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Omana
Party Age
71
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Shalini
Party Age
48
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sivakumar
Party Age
45
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Geetha Kumari
Party Age
55
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Vasanthakumari
Party Age
58
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of sale deed No.2394/1994, Copy of sale deed No.924/2005, Tax receipt.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. K.Jayachandran
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendants are restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties.
Evidence:
The defendants are restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties and from creating any way through the plaint schedule properties.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs are allowed to put up compound walls on the existing northern and western boundary of the plaint A and B schedule properties.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are allowed to put up compound walls with granite foundation and bricks on the existing northern and western boundary of the plaint A and B schedule properties.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs are entitled to realise costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
Considering the facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to realise costs of the suit from the defendants.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of sale deed No.2394/1994 of Kazhakuttom SRO establishing ownership of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of sale deed No.924/2005 of Kazhakuttom SRO establishing ownership of the plaint B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt dated 30/05/2024 related to the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt produced by the plaintiff dated 30/05/2024 related to the plaint B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A4

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Omana et al vs Sivakumar et al regarding boundary and injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Omana et al vs Sivakumar et al regarding boundary and injunction.

Quick Facts

Location
Thiruvananthapuram
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Sat, 04/27/2024 - 12:00
Case Closed
Mon, 07/07/2025 - 12:00
From
Tue, 07/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Thu, 07/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between K. Somasekhara Pillai vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Aloysius E.Gomez et al vs Maglin Lobo regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Dr. Aggy. S. Valentine vs State of Kerala et al regarding mandatory injunction and other reliefs
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Syed Mohammed Sadik vs Suresh Babu. R.C regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and consequential reliefs.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Thulaseedharan.B. vs Bindu et al regarding temporary prohibitory injunction
Court of Additional Munsiff (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won