Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No 1279/2017

Case between Syamala Kumari.T vs Vasantha.T., Vikraman regarding fixation of boundary and recovery of possession

Court
Court of Additional Munsiff-I
Judge
Sri. Manesh. S.V.
Order Date
2025-07-25
Duration
approximately-8 years
Case Closed
Fri, 07/25/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Syamala Kumari.T, is seeking a decree for the fixation of boundary and recovery of possession against the defendants, who are her close relatives. The dispute involves land ownership and the plaintiff's rights over the property inherited from her mother.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, allowing the fixation of the boundary and granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff is permitted to realize costs from the defendants.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The line shown by letters ME in Ext C1(a) shall be the boundary dividing the plaint B and plaint C schedule properties. The defendants are restrained from demolishing any portion of the building in A and B schedule properties.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, allowing the fixation of the boundary and granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff is permitted to realize costs from the defendants.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff proved her case with adequate evidence of ownership and rights to the property, while the defendants failed to substantiate their claims.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The challenge regarding the execution of Ext.A8 fails being devoid of any merits. The defendants did not produce any evidence to counter the plaintiff's claims.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as follows: 1. The line shown by letters ME in Ext C1(a) shall be the boundary dividing the plaint B and plaint C schedule properties. 2. The defendants and their henchmen are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from demolishing any portion of the building in A and B schedule properties.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Syamala Kumari.T
Party Age
50
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Vasantha.T.
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Vikraman
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Settlement deed No.507/1998, Settlement deed No.289/2011, Original Tax receipts No.42907, No.25952, Original Possession Certificate, Original Will No.51/2006, Certified Copy of Judgment in OS.No.206/2004, Form No. 12 letters issued from Taluk Surveyor, Certified Copy of Judgment in AS 145/2005.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. M.K.Valsalakumari
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
B.Vasudevan Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from demolishing any part of the building in A and B schedule properties.
Evidence:
The defendants and their henchmen are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from demolishing any portion of the building in A and B schedule properties.
Relief Type: Boundary Fixation
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Fixing of the boundary between the plaint B and plaint C schedule properties.
Evidence:
The line shown by letters ME in Ext C1(a) shall be the boundary dividing the plaint B and plaint C schedule properties.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Recovery of possession of property as claimed by the plaintiff.
Evidence:
There is no evidence to prove that the defendants encroached upon any portion of the plaint A or B schedule property and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of recovery of possession.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of settlement deed No.507/1998 dated 18/02/1998, proving the plaintiff's ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of settlement deed No.289/2011 dated 21/01/2011, relevant to the property claim.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original tax receipt No.42907 dated 05/04/2016, establishing tax payment by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3(a)
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original tax receipt No.25952 dated 19/06/2017, establishing tax payment by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3(b)
Document Type: Possession Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original possession certificate dated 30/07/2018, evidencing plaintiff's possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Will
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original will No.51/2006 dated 31/01/2016, bequeathing property to the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Judgment
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of judgment in OS.206/2004 dated 25/07/2005, dismissing previous challenging suit.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Form
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Form No.12 letters (two in numbers) issued from Taluk Surveyor, relevant to property demarcation.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Settlement deed No.289/2011 dated 21/01/2011, relevant to property claim.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Judgment
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of judgment in AS 145/2005 dated 27/12/2010, supporting plaintiff's ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report detailing the demarcation of the property as per court order.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Sketch accompanying the commission report outlining property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Certified copy of settlement deed No.507/1998 dated 18/02/1998, mentioned for reference.
Reference:
Ext.X1

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Syamala Kumari.T vs Vasantha.T., Vikraman regarding fixation of boundary and recovery of possession
Case Code Year
Case between Syamala Kumari.T vs Vasantha.T., Vikraman regarding fixation of boundary and recovery of possession

Quick Facts

Location
Thiruvananthapuram
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Wed, 08/02/2017 - 12:00
Case Closed
Fri, 07/25/2025 - 12:00
From
Tue, 07/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Thu, 07/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

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
Case between Biji.R vs Sheeja regarding specific performance
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won