Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
ORIGINAL SUIT No.102/2021

Case between TP Roopesh et al vs Prameela et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Judge
Smt.Meera John K
Order Date
2025-11-12
Duration
approximately-4 years
Case Closed
Wed, 11/12/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

TP Roopesh and NP Anusooya are the plaintiffs seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against their neighbors, Prameela and Krishna Kumar, for illegal construction on adjacent property. The defendants have violated building rules, causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiffs who are granted a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants regarding illegal construction. The court also orders that the defendants are restrained from continuing construction without proper approvals.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants No. 1 and 2 from illegal construction.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiffs who are granted a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants regarding illegal construction. The court also orders that the defendants are restrained from continuing construction without proper approvals.
Why Plaintiff Won:
Plaintiffs provided unchallenged evidence showing illegal construction by defendants in violation of building rules.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Plaintiffs provided unchallenged evidence showing illegal construction by defendants in violation of building rules.
Supporting Evidence
The unchallenged evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 would show that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: Defendants No. 1 and 2 are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from making any construction in plaint B schedule property in violation of the existing building rules and regulations and without plan and license from the 3rd defendant near to the boundary of plaint A schedule property without providing the mandatory distance from plaint A schedule property.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
TP Roopesh
Party Age
48
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
NP Anusooya
Party Age
48
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Prameela
Party Age
58
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Krishna Kumar
Party Age
65
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
The Secretary
Plaintiffs Documents
Jenmam Assignment deed No.4643/2013, Tax receipt, Certified copy of settlement deed No.747/2008.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Adv.TV Sunil Kumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Irshad PP
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.Srinath Girish
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.KS Rajagopalan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants No. 1 and 2 are restrained from making any construction in plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
Defendants No. 1 and 2 are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from making any construction in plaint B schedule property in violation of the existing building rules and regulations.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendant No. 3 is restrained from granting permit or license for the ongoing construction.
Evidence:
Defendant No. 3 are restrained from granting permit or licence to defendant No. 1 and 2 towards continuance of the construction of the present building.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs are entitled to receive costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are entitled to get the costs of the suit from the defendants.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Jenmam assignment deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document establishes the plaintiffs' ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document demonstrates the plaintiffs' responsibility for property taxes.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document provides evidence of the defendants' ownership of adjacent property.
Reference:
Ext.A3

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Violation of lease conditions
Case Code
Case between TP Roopesh et al vs Prameela et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between TP Roopesh et al vs Prameela et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Fri, 11/12/2021 - 12:00
Case Closed
Wed, 11/12/2025 - 12:00
From
Wed, 10/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 12/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Geetha KP vs Ramesh Babu et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Premarajan K.N. vs Jiji P. et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Snehaja PV vs Syam Sachith regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Shajahan TP vs Moideen P et al regarding Perpetual prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between THARAVATTATH MARIYAM vs C. K. NASAR et al regarding Permanent Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won