Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.1677/2013

Case between Surendran Nair vs S. Jayakumar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and setting aside a Will

Court
Court of Principal Munsiff
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-10-27
Duration
approximately-12 years 0 days
Case Code No.
1677
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Surendran Nair is the plaintiff in a suit against S. Jayakumar and others, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction and claiming ownership of a property by virtue of a Will executed in his favor. The defendants are contesting the validity of the Will and claiming rights over the property.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to prevent them from trespassing or interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the property.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendants and their henchmen are perpetually restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from forcefully evicting the plaintiff.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to prevent them from trespassing or interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found that the plaintiff proved his ownership of the property through a valid Will and established his continuous possession.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found that the plaintiff proved his ownership of the property through a valid Will and established his continuous possession.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence presented by the plaintiff, including the validity of the Will and the corroboration of possession, was deemed credible and convincing by the court.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result: O.S. No.1906/2016 is dismissed. O.S. No. 1677/2013 is decreed, restraining the defendants from trespassing.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Surendran Nair
Party Age
47
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
S. Jayakumar
Party Age
40
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Premachandran Nair
Party Age
55
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Baby Sarojam
Party Age
65
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
J. Gopinathan Nair
Party Age
60
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Shobhanakumari
Party Age
54
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Will deed No.246/2013, Attested copy of Sale deed No.187/1991, Original Death Certificate of Sri. K. Velappan Nair, Death Certificate of Smt. Rajamma, Encumbrance certificate
Defendants Documents
Document, Copy of the complaint filed with the Chief Minister of Kerala, Copy of complaint filed with the Home Minister of Kerala

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. B. Vasudevan Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. S. Pradeep Kumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. P.K. Venugopal
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendants from trespassing and forcefully evicting from the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
Let the defendants and their henchmen be perpetually restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from forcefully evicting the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property otherwise than due process of law.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Defendants seek injunction against the plaintiff regarding the same property.
Evidence:
Their claims are not supported by any credible evidence and hence, they are not entitled to get an order of an injunction.
Relief Type: Setting Aside Will
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Defendants claimed the will was executed under fraud and undue influence.
Evidence:
The court finds that the defendants have failed to establish that Ext.A1 was brought into existence by fraud, coercion or undue influence.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Will Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The will executed by Smt. Rajamma in favor of the plaintiff, establishing his claim to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Attested copy of the Sale Deed through which the material uncle of the plaintiff acquired the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Death Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original death certificate of Sri. K. Velappan Nair, establishing the lineage to property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Death Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Death certificate of Smt. Rajamma, confirming her death when the will came into effect.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Encumbrance certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Encumbrance certificate establishing the legal standing of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Copy of plaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of plaint in ARC No. 1106/2019, relevant for the claims associated with the property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Document
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Document purportedly executed by Sri. Sukumaran Nair, claimed by defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of complaint filed with the Chief Minister of Kerala regarding the circumstances of Smt. Rajamma's death.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of complaint filed with the Home Minister of Kerala regarding the circumstances of Smt. Rajamma's death.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Court commission report pertaining to the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Loan Application
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Loan application that shows the financial transaction evidence related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.X1
Document Type: Gehan
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Document related to the loan signed by the plaintiff and Smt. Rajamma.
Reference:
Ext.X1(a)
Document Type: Consent letter
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Consent letter where Smt. Rajamma agreed to pledge her property for the loan.
Reference:
Ext.X1(b)

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
2013

Quick Facts

Location
Thiruvananthapuram
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Tue, 01/01/2013 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Wed, 10/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 10/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

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