Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
ORIGINAL SUIT No.340/2022

Case between Arundathi Devi A et al vs P Latha et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
The Principal Munsiff – I, Kozhikode
Judge
Smt.Meera John K
Order Date
2025-11-12
Duration
approximately-3 years 22 days
Case Closed
Wed, 11/12/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, represented by their father, are seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to prevent them from damaging their property and trespassing. The case involves property boundaries and the right of the plaintiffs to their property.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to prevent them from damaging the boundary wall and trespassing.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from damaging the wall and trespassing into the plaintiffs' properties.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to prevent them from damaging the boundary wall and trespassing.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs were able to demonstrate their rightful ownership and the threat posed by the defendants.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs were able to demonstrate their rightful ownership and the threat posed by the defendants.
Supporting Evidence
The unchallenged evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 would show that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as prayed for.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1.The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from obliterating the wall on the north-western side of their property for annexing the way towards their property and from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. 2.The plaintiffs are entitled to realise the costs of the suit from the defendants.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Arundathi Devi A
Party Age
21
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Madhavika Devi A
Party Age
15
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Vineetha
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
P Latha
Party Age
58
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Amrithlal
Party Age
33
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Vadakke Kunnath Madhavan
Party Age
71
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of the Judgment in OS 112/21, Certified copy of settlement deed (No.2012/1/2016), Gift deed executed by Chanthu in favour of Gopalan.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Manoj N
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. T Nandakumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Smt. Viswalekha KC
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendants are restrained from demolishing their wall and trespassing into the plaintiffs' properties.
Evidence:
the suit is decreed as follows: 1.The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from obliterating the wall on the north-western side of their property for annexing the way towards their property and from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties owned and possessed by the plaintiffs.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs are entitled to realize the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
the plaintiffs are entitled to realise the costs of the suit from the defendants.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Certified copy of the judgment
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document served as evidence regarding the prior case related to the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Certified Copy of Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This settlement deed documents the joint ownership of the plaintiffs over the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Gift Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This gift deed establishes the historical ownership relevant to the plaintiffs' claims.
Reference:
Ext.A3

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Arundathi Devi A et al vs P Latha et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Arundathi Devi A et al vs P Latha et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Sat, 11/12/2022 - 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
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Canara Bank vs M/S U.B. Hardwares regarding suit dismissal
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sujith K.M. vs P. Chandramathi @ Chandrika et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Panakkal Mammedkoya vs Fabir et al regarding partition
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Kalarikandy Subash Babu (died), Durga Devi, Bindya, Sandya vs Kasthuri Bai, Ramani Bai regarding partition of property.
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF - I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Moideen.V.P vs Pathumma et al regarding setting aside a final decree
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF - I
Civil Suit Defendant Won