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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O. S. No.261/2018

Case between Kumaran et al vs Upendran regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PERUMBAVOOR
Judge
Smt. Sumey Chandran
Order Date
2025-07-28
Duration
7 years 6 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

This case involves a dispute over property rights between the plaintiffs, Kumaran and others, and the defendant Upendran. The plaintiffs seek a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent the defendant from interfering with their access to a path used for agricultural purposes.

Judgment Outcome

Partial Relief
Interim Order
The court dismissed both the plaintiffs' suit and the defendant's counter-claim, stating that neither party could prove their respective claims regarding the property dispute.
Judgment Favored
Dismissed
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, The suit is dismissed. The counter-claim is also dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Kumaran (52 years years) Mannamparambil House, Rayamangalam Kara, Rayamangalam Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk. Uzha (54 years years) Puthiyedathu House, Rayamangalam Kara, Rayamangalam Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk. Gangadharan Nair (50 years years) Kunnathukudy House, Rayamangalam Kara, Rayamangalam Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk.

Defendants

Upendran (58 years years) Vettikkalil House @ Kuzhikkattu, Iringol Kara, Perumbavoor Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk.

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from encroaching on Plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
The suit is dismissed.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The defendant sought a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiffs from obstructing the construction of his boundary wall.
Evidence:
The counter-claim is also dismissed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the sale deed No 240/2008 of SRO Kuruppampady, establishing ownership of Plaint A schedule Property No. 1.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the sale deed No 3473/200 of SRO Kuruppampady, establishing ownership of Plaint A schedule Property No. 2.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of the sale deed No 3276/2006 of SRO Kuruppampady, confirming the western boundary of the defendant’s property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Land tax receipt confirming the ownership of the defendant’s property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Survey Plan
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
True copy of the Survey plan in field No. 421, Block 18 of Rayamangalam Village, submitted to support the defendant's position.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report and rough sketch submitted by Adv. M U Devassykutty, providing details of the physical attributes of the sites involved.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report and rough sketch submitted by Adv. M U Devassykutty outlining the measurements and existence of the pathways.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Oral evidence
Relevance:
Testimony from the plaintiff's witness (PW1) was provided in court.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Perumbavoor
Case Filed
Mon, 01/01/2018 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases