Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.1063/2014

Case between Sathi.V vs Francis et al regarding recovery of possession and permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-07-23
Duration
approximately-10 years 9 months
Case Code No.
1063
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Reghu Kumar, seeking to recover possession of property from the defendants, who they claim are trespassers. The case involves issues of ownership and entitlement to the property after the death of the real owner.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction is decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, establishing their ownership of the plaint schedule property and restraining the defendants from trespassing.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The plaintiffs are entitled to the recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and a permanent injunction against the defendants.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction is decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, establishing their ownership of the plaint schedule property and restraining the defendants from trespassing.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs established their ownership and possession through unimpeachable evidence, and the defendants failed to provide any proof of their claims.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs established their ownership and possession through unimpeachable evidence, and the defendants failed to provide any proof of their claims.
Supporting Evidence
It is evident from Ext.A1 that the late Sri.Reghu Kumar was the owner of the plaint schedule property. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have demonstrated their lawful ownership and possession through unrebutted evidence.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result; the suit is decreed as follows: (a) The plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants 3 to 6. (b) Let the defendants 3 to 6 and anyone claiming through them, be perpetually restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sathi.V
Party Age
51
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Saritha.R.S
Party Age
51
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Haritha.R.S
Party Age
27
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Francis
Party Age
82
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Haritha.R.S
Party Age
27
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Eliamma
Party Age
70
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sherly
Party Age
40
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Shyni
Party Age
38
Relation
D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of the sale deed No. 702/1999, Tax receipt, Possession Certificate, Location Certificate, Location Map, Thandaper Extract, Original Death Certificate, Certificate of Encumbrance of Property.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
G. Rajeev
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Radhika S Nair
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants 3 to 6.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Perpetual restraint on the defendants from trespassing into the property.
Evidence:
Let the defendants 3 to 6 and anyone claiming through them, be perpetually restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the sale deed establishing the plaintiffs' ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt demonstrating the payment of land tax by the deceased owner.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Possession Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original possession certificate confirming the plaintiffs' possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Location Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certificate showing the location of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Location Map
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Map indicating the geographical location of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Thandaper Extract
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Extract of land records relevant to the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Death Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original death certificate of the deceased owner confirming their demise.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Encumbrance certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certificate indicating the encumbrances on the property.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Commission Report & Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Court documents prepared during the commission process.
Reference:
Ext.C1 & Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Commission report and Survey plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Court documents related to the survey of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C2 & Ext.C2(a)

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2014

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Fri, 07/25/2014 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Tue, 07/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Thu, 07/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between R. Saroja vs Sivathanu @ Murugan et al regarding partition of plaint schedule properties.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sarathchandran Nair.J vs Government of India et al regarding boundary measurement and injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Nazarudeen. A vs Tom.D et al regarding suit for declaration, recovery of possession, and injunction
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
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