Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.240/2023

Case between Sree Narayana Bhaktha Janasamithi et al vs Sreekumar. S et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-08-23
Duration
approximately-2 years 6 days
Case Code No.
240
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

This case involves the Sree Narayana Bhaktha Janasamithi and its president Jagannathan against defendants Sreekumar. S and Rejith.S. The plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with the administration and renovation works of a family temple.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court granted the plaintiffs' request for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, preventing them from interfering with the temple's administration and renovation works.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the property and interfering with renovation works.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court granted the plaintiffs' request for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, preventing them from interfering with the temple's administration and renovation works.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs satisfied the essential ingredients for granting a permanent injunction, demonstrating a legal right and the necessity of the injunction.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs satisfied the essential ingredients for granting a permanent injunction, demonstrating a legal right and the necessity of the injunction.
Supporting Evidence
The essential ingredients for granting a permanent injunction such as the existence of a legal right, wrongful threat to possession, irreparable injury and balance of convenience are all satisfied in favour of the plaintiffs.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result; the suit is decreed as follows: (A) Let the defendants and their henchmen be perpetually restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from interfering with the renovation works of the temple situated in the same. (B) Let the defendants and their henchmen be perpetually restrained from causing any obstructions or hindrance to the poojas, prayers and other rituals of the temple situated in the plaint schedule property. (C) The plaintiffs are also entitled to recover the costs of the suit from the defendants and their assets.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sree Narayana Bhaktha Janasamithi
Relation
represented by its Secretary, Rajan
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Jagannathan
Party Age
55
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sreekumar. S
Party Age
48
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Rejith.S
Party Age
35
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Partition deed No. 2889/1115 ME, Registration Certificate, Land Tax Receipt, Letter of consent, Audit report
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.V. Vivekanandan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.D.K. Satheesh
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendants are to be restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from interfering with the renovation works of the temple.
Evidence:
the suit is decreed as follows: Let the defendants and their henchmen be perpetually restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from interfering with the renovation works of the temple situated in the same.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendants are to be restrained from causing any obstructions or hindrance to the poojas, prayers, and other rituals of the temple.
Evidence:
Let the defendants and their henchmen be perpetually restrained from causing any obstructions or hindrance to the poojas, prayers and other rituals of the temple situated in the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs are entitled to recover the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are also entitled to recover the costs of the suit from the defendants and their assets.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The original partition deed was produced to establish the property set aside for the construction of the family temple.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Registration Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The registration certificate of the Samithi managing the temple administration was presented as evidence of its existence and authority.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The land tax receipt was shown to support the claim of the property ownership by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Letter of Consent
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used to demonstrate the internal support and approval for the temple's renovation committee.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Audit report
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The audit report showed the funds collected and expenditures made for the temple renovation, evidencing the financial management by the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A5

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
2023

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Sat, 08/12/2023 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Fri, 08/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 08/31/2025 - 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