Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No. 569/2023

Case between Kannan et al vs B.Satheeshan et al regarding Fixation of Boundary, Recovery of Possession and Injunction.

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Judge
Smt. Ragi.S.
Order Date
2025-01-31
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

This case involves the plaintiffs Kannan and Bhadran filing for fixation of boundary, recovery of possession, and injunction against the defendants B.Satheeshan and Ajith Kumar. The court found that the plaintiffs did not remit the balance court fee.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit was rejected as the plaintiffs did not remit the required court fee.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was rejected as the plaintiffs did not remit the required court fee.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Supporting Evidence

Judgment Evidence:

Hence plaint rejected u/o 7 Rule 11(c) of Civil Procedure Code.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Kannan
Party Age
37
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Bhadran
Party Age
40
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
B.Satheeshan
Party Age
42
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Ajith Kumar
Party Age
36
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Dileep.S
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Krishna Priya
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Ajithkumar.S
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
G.Gopakumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Injunction was sought by the plaintiffs.
Evidence:
Hence plaint rejected u/o 7 Rule 11(c) of Civil Procedure Code.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Recovery of possession was requested by the plaintiffs.
Evidence:
Hence plaint rejected u/o 7 Rule 11(c) of Civil Procedure Code.
Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Fixation of boundary was sought by the plaintiffs.
Evidence:
Hence plaint rejected u/o 7 Rule 11(c) of Civil Procedure Code.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Kannan et al vs B.Satheeshan et al regarding Fixation of Boundary, Recovery of Possession and Injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Kannan et al vs B.Satheeshan et al regarding Fixation of Boundary, Recovery of Possession and Injunction.

Quick Facts

Location
Kollam
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Wed, 01/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 02/28/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
70%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Vijayendran, Chithra vs Yamunadevi regarding review of order
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Navasudeen.S vs Sira Group regarding review of an earlier order
Court of the Munsiff, Kollam
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sajeev vs T.Unnikrishna Pillai regarding setting aside an exparte decree.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Gopakumar vs K.S.Abdul Manaf regarding Realisation of Money
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM.
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Bank of India vs Shibina. S et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won