Case Summary
The plaintiffs Preetha and her father Nesamany are seeking a permanent injunction against defendants Sreekumaran Nair and his sons, claiming unauthorized attempts to access their property and demolish a wall. The plaintiffs assert their exclusive ownership and possession of the disputed property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against demolition of the compound wall and construction of a gate.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them a permanent injunction against the defendants from demolishing their compound wall and erecting any gate accessing the property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs established a prima facie case for the necessity of a permanent injunction based on their exclusive possession and ownership of the property.
The plaintiffs established a prima facie case for the necessity of a permanent injunction based on their exclusive possession and ownership of the property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs established a prima facie case for the necessity of a permanent injunction based on their exclusive possession and ownership of the property.
The plaintiffs established a prima facie case for the necessity of a permanent injunction based on their exclusive possession and ownership of the property.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs have established a prima facie case in their favour by producing evidence to show that the disputed pathway and bridge were constructed on their own property and are being exclusively used by them, with no legal right conferred upon the defendants.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result: the suit is decreed as follows: (a) Let the defendants and their agents be perpetually restrained from demolishing the northern side of the compound wall of the plaintiffs’ property and from erecting any gate or entrance into the 1st plaintiff’s property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Preetha
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nesamany
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sreekumaran Nair
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sreejith
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sujith
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Sale Deed No. 957/2009, Tax receipt
Defendants Documents
Tax receipt, Copy of the Re-survey Plan
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. S. Dharmapalan Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. R. Kunjikrishnan Potti
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a decree to restrain the defendants from demolishing the boundary wall and trespassing.
Evidence:
Let the defendants and their agents be perpetually restrained from demolishing the northern side of the compound wall of the plaintiffs’ property and from erecting any gate or entrance into the 1st plaintiff’s property.
Relief Type:
Cost Recovery
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs are entitled to recover costs of the suit from the 1st defendant.
Evidence:
Considering the nature of the suit, the plaintiffs are entitled to realise the costs of the suit from the 1st defendant and her assets.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Original Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the ownership of the 1st plaintiff over 2 cents of property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This tax receipt supports the claim of the 1st plaintiff regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Original Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the 2nd plaintiff's ownership of 1 are 75 sq. meters of land.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirms the 2nd plaintiff received the property as a gift from his mother.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supports the claim regarding the property ownership and payment of taxes.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the layout and description of the plaint schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Supports the claim of the 1st defendant related to his property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Re-Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Provides a reference for the property survey information from the defendant's side.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Commission Report & Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Details findings from the court-appointed commission regarding the properties.
Reference:
Ext.C1
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
2022