Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S.No.34/2008

Case between P.Geetha vs Chandran et al regarding declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-RCC
Judge
Smt.Salini.B
Order Date
2025-08-27
Duration
approximately-17 years 20 days
Case Code No.
34
Case Closed
Wed, 08/27/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff P.Geetha is claiming ownership and possession over a property based on a Will executed by her father. The defendants Chandran and S.D.Thara Kumari are contesting her claims and asserting their own ownership.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed that the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration of title over the plaint B schedule property, allowed recovery of the property from the defendants, and restrained the defendants from encroaching on the plaint A schedule property.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Declaration of title over plaint B schedule property, recovery of possession from defendants, and permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed that the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration of title over the plaint B schedule property, allowed recovery of the property from the defendants, and restrained the defendants from encroaching on the plaint A schedule property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff proved her ownership through a valid Will and evidenced her tax payments and property permits.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff as per order in I.A. 1/2020 in A.S.292/2011 dated 30/10/2020 carried out amendment by scheduling EFG plot separately as Plaint B scheduled property and remitted the court fee for the amended prayer for declaration of title of plaint B schedule property and recovery of possession of the same and the prayer of recovery of possession of plaint B scheduled property made clear.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as follows: a) The plaintiff is allowed to put up of common boundary wall along the eastern boundary line of plaint A schedule property in the north-south direction with granite foundation and basement with burned brick superstructure of 5 feet height from the basement level with cement mortar at the common expense of the plaintiff and defendants separating the Plaint A scheduled property from that of the defendants. b) The plaintiff's title over the plaint B schedule property is hereby declared. c) The plaintiff is allowed to recover the plaint B schedule property from the defendants. d) The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from constructing a compound wall at the east of the plaint A schedule property and from trespassing or encroaching into the plaint A schedule property and from disturbing or obstructing the construction of building in the plaint A schedule property or from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint A schedule property.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
P.Geetha
Party Age
38
Relation
W/o.S.Arun
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Chandran
Party Age
45
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
S.D.Thara Kumari
Party Age
35
Relation
W/o.Chandran
Plaintiffs Documents
Will deed No.P1/1990/3/27/91, Certified copy of tax receipt for the year 2005-2006, Certified copy of building permit dated 05.03.2007.
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of settlement deed No.1836/1990, Tax receipt in the name of second defendant for the year 2023-2024.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.M.R.Anandakuttan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. J.K.Ajith Prasad
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff's title over the plaint B schedule property is hereby declared.
Evidence:
The plaintiff's title over the plaint B schedule property is hereby declared.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is allowed to recover the plaint B schedule property from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is allowed to recover the plaint B schedule property from the defendants.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants are restrained from constructing a compound wall at the east of the plaint A schedule property and from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession.
Evidence:
Defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from constructing a compound wall at the east of the plaint A schedule property...
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Counterclaim filed by the defendants is dismissed.
Evidence:
The counter claim is dismissed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Will Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves the plaintiff's title over the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the plaintiff has been paying tax for the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Building Permit
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Validates the plaintiff's right to construct on the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Approved Plan
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrates the sanctioned construction plan on the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Illustrates the level of construction made in the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A5 series
Document Type: Photograph
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the gate installed in the defendants' property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides background ownership information related to the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Supports the defendants' claim of ownership over the counterclaim scheduled property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Demonstrates the second defendant’s tax payments for the property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Provides evidence of the defendants' ownership through tax payments.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Re-Survey Plan
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Details the land layout and supports the defendants' claims.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Re-Survey Plan
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Further evidence related to the land in question and supports the defendants' position.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provides findings that are critical to the court's decision-making.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Details significant findings on the disputed property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Clarifies the layout of the disputed land.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Offers updated evidence regarding the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type: Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Graphically represents the updated boundaries identified by the commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C3(a)
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Includes testimonies and oral arguments presented during the hearings.
Reference:

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S.NO.
Case Code Year
2008

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Tue, 01/01/2008 - 12:00
Case Closed
Wed, 08/27/2025 - 12:00
From
Fri, 08/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 08/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Saraswathy Amma et al vs Babu et al regarding declaration of title, recovery of possession, and injunction.
Additional Munsiff -RCC
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between J.Mohanan et al vs Biju George regarding declaration of title and possession over plaint schedule property.
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Aravindan Nair et al vs Ramachandran Nair et al regarding partition and permanent prohibitory injunction.
THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Ramesan vs Sujatha et al regarding partition of ancestral property.
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Biji.R vs Sheeja regarding specific performance
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won