Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
Original Suit No.70/2020

Case between Prasu et al vs Lilil Kumar regarding recovery of possession and realization of damages

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Judge
Sri. ARAVIND P.
Order Date
2025-06-17
Duration
approximately-5 years 6 months
Case Closed
Tue, 06/17/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Prasu and her children, are seeking recovery of possession of a shop room owned by their deceased father Mr. Babu, which the defendant, Mr. Lilil Kumar, has occupied. The case also involves claims for damages due to the defendant's failure to vacate the premises and return possession.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant to vacate the shop room and granting the plaintiffs damages for loss of rental income.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendant is directed to vacate the shop room and plaintiffs are entitled to realize ₹1,000/- per month as license fee.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant to vacate the shop room and granting the plaintiffs damages for loss of rental income.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence established that the license granted to the defendant had been revoked, and he had no legal right to remain in possession of the shop room.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The evidence established that the license granted to the defendant had been revoked, and he had no legal right to remain in possession of the shop room.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence adduced by the plaintiffs would go to show that late Mr.Babu has actually granted license to the defendant to conduct the shop. When he reached the native place, he has orally revoked the permission on 31.01.2017.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1. The defendant is hereby directed to vacate the plaint schedule shop room within ten days from the date of this judgment. 2. Plaintiffs are also entitled to realize ₹1,000/- (Rupees Thousand only) per month as license fee from the date of suit till the date of handing over vacant possession of plaint schedule shop.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Prasu
Party Age
67
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Subana
Party Age
41
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Arun Babu
Party Age
38
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Lilil Kumar
Party Age
53
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Power of Attorney, Certified copy of Sale deed No. 134/1976, Tax receipt, Building tax receipt, Certified copy of the appeal memorandum before the Hon'ble Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Certified copy of the order in the appeal, Certified copy of the order in Revision Petition.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Vakkom R. Jayaprakash
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. P. Hemachandran Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Possession
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs sought to recover possession of the plaint schedule shop room.
Evidence:
The defendant is hereby directed to vacate the plaint schedule shop room within ten days from the date of this judgment.
Relief Type: Damages
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs sought realization of damages amounting to ₹36,000/-.
Evidence:
Plaintiffs are also entitled to realize ₹1,000/- (Rupees Thousand only) per month as license fee from the date of suit till the date of handing over vacant possession of plaint schedule shop.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document evidences the authority of the first plaintiff to represent the second and third plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the ownership of the plaint schedule property by late Mr. Babu.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document indicates that property taxes were remitted by the plaintiffs' predecessor for the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the claim of the plaintiffs regarding the upkeep of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Certified copy of Appeal
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows the legal recourse the plaintiffs' predecessor took against the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Certified copy of Order in Appeal
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is pertinent to the appeal filed by the plaintiffs' predecessor.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Certified copy of Order in Revision Petition
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document relates to the dismissal of the defendant's revision petition.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Certified copy of Plaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document pertains to the previous suit filed by the defendant against Mr. Babu.
Reference:
Ext.A8

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiffs Court, Varkala
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Prasu et al vs Lilil Kumar regarding recovery of possession and realization of damages
Case Code Year
Case between Prasu et al vs Lilil Kumar regarding recovery of possession and realization of damages

Quick Facts

Location
Varkala
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiffs Court, Varkala
Case Filed
Wed, 06/17/2020 - 12:00
Case Closed
Tue, 06/17/2025 - 12:00
From
Thu, 05/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 08/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Shalu vs State of Kerala et al regarding granting a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VARKALA
Civil Suit Plaintiff 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