Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S.No.988/1995

Case between Saraswathy Amma et al vs Babu et al regarding declaration of title, recovery of possession, and injunction.

Court
Additional Munsiff -RCC
Judge
Smt.Salini.B
Order Date
2025-11-29
Duration
approximately-30 years 11 months
Case Code No.
988
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, headed by Saraswathy Amma, claim ownership of a property based on a partition deed and assert that the defendants, Babu and others, have encroached upon their land. The suit seeks recovery of possession and construction of a boundary wall after the defendants allegedly refuse cooperation.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, confirming their title to the plaint scheduled property and allowing them to recover possession, including demolition of encroaching structures by the defendants.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Plaintiffs are allowed to recover the encroached portion of the plaint scheduled property and to construct a boundary wall.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, confirming their title to the plaint scheduled property and allowing them to recover possession, including demolition of encroaching structures by the defendants.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs were able to establish their title to the property through relevant documents and evidence, disproving adverse possession claims by the defendants.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs were able to establish their title to the property through relevant documents and evidence, disproving adverse possession claims by the defendants.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs' claim is substantiated by the partition deed, assignment deed, and evidence establishing their title and possession over the plaint scheduled property.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as follows: 1. The plaintiffs’ title and possession over the plaint scheduled property of extend 18.66 cents is hereby declared. 2. The plaintiffs are allowed to recover the encroached portion of the plaint scheduled property and the portion of the building therein in the possession of the 2nd defendant by demolishing the projected and abutting portion of the building and to construct a boundary wall at the southern side of property.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Saraswathy Amma
Party Age
73
Relation
D/o.Lekshmi Amma
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sukumari
Party Age
75
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sivan
Party Age
70
Relation
D/o.Lekshmi Amma
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Ayyappadas
Party Age
65
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sreedevi
Party Age
60
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Babu
Party Age
55
Relation
S/o.Soman
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Vasanthakumary
Relation
D/o.Chellama
Plaintiffs Documents
Partition deed No.4339/1119 M.E., Sale deed No.3561/1123, Tax receipt from Ulloor Village Office.
Defendants Documents
Settlement deed No.1823/80, Partition deed entered into between Chellamma and 6 others.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. B.Vasudevan Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.L.Ramesh Babu
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.V.Suresh
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs' title and possession over the plaint scheduled property is declared.
Evidence:
The title of the plaintiffs over plaint scheduled property is found not lost by adverse possession by the 2nd defendant.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs are allowed to recover the encroached portion of the property.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are allowed to recover the encroached portion of the plaint scheduled property.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants are restrained from trespassing and encroaching into the plaint scheduled property.
Evidence:
The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs can construct a boundary wall at the southern side separating it from the defendants' property.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are entitled to construct a boundary wall at the southern side of plaint scheduled property.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint scheduled property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Details the assignment of property from plaintiffs to the father of the second defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supports the possession of the plaintiffs over the property by showing tax payments.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Encumbrance certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirms the legal status of the plaint scheduled property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Establishes ownership and claims of the defendants over the southern property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Details ownership claims made by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Documents findings related to property identification.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Details identification and measurement of the plaint scheduled property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Expert's Engineer's Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provides assessment and analysis regarding the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Document Type: Preliminary Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Offers initial findings about the plaint scheduled property.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type: Survey Plan
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Used for reference regarding property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.B3

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Declaration of title
Case Code
O.S.NO.
Case Code Year
1995

Quick Facts

Location
Thiruvananthapuram
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Sat, 08/12/1995 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Sat, 11/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 11/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Gladstone.D et al vs Lilibai et al regarding partition and injunction.
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Rajesh Balakrishnan vs Sunitha Sundar et al regarding partition and permanent prohibitory injunction.
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff 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
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