Case Summary
The plaintiffs, including the deceased Susheela Devi, are seeking to establish property boundaries and prevent the defendants from encroaching on their land. The defendants have previously trespassed and caused damage to the property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Plaintiffs are permitted to construct a granite foundation and a compound wall on the western boundary of the plaint 'B' schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is partly decreed. The prayer for putting up a boundary on the southern side was dismissed, but the plaintiffs are allowed to construct a boundary on the western side separating their properties from the defendants'.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs demonstrated a prima facie case for permanent injunction.
The plaintiffs demonstrated a prima facie case for permanent injunction.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs demonstrated a prima facie case for permanent injunction.
The plaintiffs demonstrated a prima facie case for permanent injunction.
Supporting Evidence
The actions of the 2nd defendant, including the threats, trespass and obstruction are causing harm to the plaintiffs and their property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result; the suit is partly decreed as follows: (a) The prayer for putting up of a boundary on the southern side of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties, separating them from the plaint ‘C’ schedule property, is dismissed. (b) The plaintiffs are permitted to construct a granite foundation and a compound wall on the western boundary of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property separating the plaint 'B' schedule property from the plaint 'D' schedule property along the 'A-P-O' line, as mentioned in Ext.C1(a), at their own expense.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Susheela Devi. B.
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Beena M.S
- Party Age
- 32
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mohanan Nair
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Veena M.S
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Anil Kumar
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Gopa Kumar
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1330/1996
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. C.R. Sudheesh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs are permitted to construct a granite foundation and a compound wall on the western boundary of the plaint 'B' schedule property separating it from the plaint 'D' schedule property.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are permitted to construct a granite foundation and a compound wall on the western boundary of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property separating the plaint 'B' schedule property from the plaint 'D' schedule property along the 'A-P-O' line, as mentioned in Ext.C1(a), at their own expense.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants and their henchmen are perpetually restrained from trespassing into the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and from demolishing the existing boundaries.
Evidence:
Let the defendants and their henchmen be perpetually restrained from trespassing into the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and from demolishing the existing boundaries.
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The prayer for putting up of a boundary on the southern side of the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, separating them from the plaint 'C' schedule property, is dismissed.
Evidence:
The prayer for putting up of a boundary on the southern side of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties, separating them from the plaint ‘C’ schedule property, is dismissed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1330/1996 was marked as evidence showing the plaintiffs' acquisition of property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Marked as a court exhibit relevant to understanding the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Marked as a court exhibit depicting the boundary separating the plaint 'B' schedule property from plaint 'D' schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(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
2015