Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.1631/2017

Case between K.S. Sumesh Kumar et al vs Biju N. Nair et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
SRI. MITHUN GOPI.G.S
Order Date
2025-11-18
Duration
approximately-8 years 6 months
Case Code No.
1631
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, K.S. Sumesh Kumar and Smitha Sumesh, claim ownership over a property and seek an injunction against the defendants, Biju N. Nair and Mohanankumar Nair, who allegedly attempted to alter the property without consent. The defendants counter that the plaintiffs have overstepped their ownership rights.

Judgment Outcome

Partial Relief
Interim Order
The case has been partly decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them protective relief regarding the use of the common pathway, but not allowing all their claims.
Judgment Favored
Partial
Relief Granted
Defendants, their agents and successors are restrained from altering the revenue records and interfering with the peaceful use of the plaint ‘C’ schedule property
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The case has been partly decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them protective relief regarding the use of the common pathway, but not allowing all their claims.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs demonstrated a prima facie right of access over the common pathway.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs demonstrated a prima facie right of access over the common pathway.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence indicates that any alteration to the pathway’s level or layout would directly impede ingress to the plaint ‘A’ schedule property, causing irreparable prejudice.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result: the suit is partly decreed as follows: (a) Let the defendants, their agents and successors be perpetually restrained from creating any type of registered or unregistered documents by annexing or appending the plaint ‘C’ schedule property as their exclusive property.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
K.S. Sumesh Kumar
Party Age
43
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Smitha Sumesh @ Smitha Rajan
Party Age
41
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Biju N. Nair
Party Age
35
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Mohanankumar Nair
Party Age
60
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Sale deed No. 1849/2006, Certified copy of Sale deed No. 131/2009, Certified copy of Sale deed No. 119/2017, Original tax receipt, Tax receipt
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Thonnakkal G. Rajeev
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. Swayamprabha H.L
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. Soorya. L
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Ashok P. Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.Ganesh M.M
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Partly Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent defendants from altering the plaint ‘C’ schedule property and its usage.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs have demonstrated a clear prima facie right of access over the plaint ‘C’ schedule property and the necessity to preserve its existing condition.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale deed No. 1849/2006 establishing the plaintiff's ownership of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale deed No. 131/2009 pertaining to the plaint ‘B’ schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale deed No. 119/2017 relevant to the property sold to the first defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original tax receipt establishing the plaintiffs' payment of property tax for the plaint ‘A’ schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt dated 27/05/2025 further validating the plaintiffs' ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report reflecting the status of the plaint schedule properties as examined by the court.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Survey Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Survey plan prepared to illustrate the layout and measurements of the plaint schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)

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
2017

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Sat, 11/18/2017 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Sat, 11/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 11/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

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 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
Case between Vanitha Sureshbabu Thilak vs Babu Chettiyar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won