Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.315/2023

Case between Vanitha Sureshbabu Thilak vs Babu Chettiyar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-01-31
Duration
Case Code No.
315
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Vanitha Sureshbabu Thilak filed a suit against Babu Chettiyar and others for a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent them from demolishing her compound wall and causing waste on her property. The plaintiff alleges harassment and obstruction from the defendants, which poses a risk to her safety and property.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff by preventing the defendants from damaging her property and ordering them to bear the costs of the suit. The plaintiff's ownership and right to protect her property were upheld.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendants 1 and 2 and their henchmen be perpetually restrained from demolishing the compound and from committing waste on the plaint schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff by preventing the defendants from damaging her property and ordering them to bear the costs of the suit. The plaintiff's ownership and right to protect her property were upheld.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established her ownership of the property and the necessity for the injunction to prevent damage.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff established her ownership of the property and the necessity for the injunction to prevent damage.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence provided by PW1 including both oral testimony and documentary proof establishes PW1’s ownership of the plaint schedule property. It is well-established in law that every property owner has the right to protect their property from unlawful encroachments or damages caused by others.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result; the suit is decreed as follows: (a) Let defendants 1 and 2 and their henchmen be perpetually restrained from demolishing the compound situated on the southwestern side of the plaint schedule property and from committing waste on the plaint schedule property.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Vanitha Sureshbabu Thilak
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Babu Chettiyar
Party Age
40
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Rajendra Babu
Party Age
55
Relation
H/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Shaji Sukumaran
Party Age
62
Plaintiffs Documents
Attested copy of the settlement deed No. 262/2011, Copy of the land tax receipt, Copy of the complaint filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. M. Anil Kumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Anoop. A
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. Geethika.R
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. Gayathri A.P
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. Aswathy Rajendran P.R
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Injunction against the defendants restraining them from demolishing the compound and committing waste on the property.
Evidence:
In the result; the suit is decreed as follows: (a) Let defendants 1 and 2 and their henchmen be perpetually restrained from demolishing the compound situated on the southwestern side of the plaint schedule property and from committing waste on the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is also entitled to realise the costs of the suit from the defendants 1 and 2 and their assets.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Attested copy of the settlement deed establishing the plaintiff's ownership of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the land tax receipt verifying the plaintiff's ownership related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the complaint filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer documenting the issues faced by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
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
Case Closed
From
Wed, 01/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 01/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Union Bank of India et al vs Midhun. M regarding rejection of plaint
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between All India Sports Council for Deaf vs The Deaf Cricket Society et al regarding return of suit
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Purushothaman Pillay Divakaran et al vs Deepti Sivan regarding injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sreenath.S vs Thankarajan et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sindhu.S et al vs Lalitha et al regarding withdrawal of suit
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won