Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 25/2025

Case between Kavitha Balakrishnan vs Faisal C.H regarding boundary fixation and injunction

Court
MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2025-04-09
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Kavitha Balakrishnan, the plaintiff, seeks an injunction against Faisal C.H, the defendant, to prevent him from constructing a boundary wall and encroaching upon her property. The case involves allegations of property rights and boundary disputes between the two parties who are relatives.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the petitioner's request for an interim order of injunction, making it absolute to prevent the defendant from constructing a boundary wall on the disputed land during the pendency of the case.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Interim prohibitory injunction against the defendant
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner established entitlement to an interim injunction based on the balance of convenience.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence, the point is found in favour of petitioner, the petition is allowed. The interim order of injunction is hereby made absolute. In the result, petition is allowed.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Kavitha Balakrishnan (47 years years) C/o Amaresh Basappa Awathi, Sri Veebhadreshwara Nilaya # 93, 1st Floor, 6th Cross Basaweshwara, Layout Kudurugere road, Dasanapura Hobli, Madanayakanathalli, Opposite Yajaman Thimmaiah Enclave, Bengaluru, karanataka – 562 162

Defendants

Faisal C.H (55 years years) Champarambil house, XVIII/313, Vadakode P.O, Kanagarapady, Kalamassery, Thrikkara north, Pin – 682 021

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner sought a prohibitory injunction to prevent the respondent from encroaching upon the petitioner's property.
Evidence:
Hence, the point is found in favour of petitioner, the petition is allowed. The ad interim order of injunction is hereby made absolute.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the petitioner's ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the petitioner's claim regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides a visual representation of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These photographs serve as evidence of the property and its condition.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This report details the boundaries and condition of the property relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Quick Facts

Location
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases