Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.574/2022

Case between Prameela vs Muraleedharan, Vijayabanu, Indira regarding a compromise agreement

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Judge
Smt. Salini.B.
Order Date
2025-02-03
Duration
Case Code No.
574
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves Prameela as the plaintiff and Muraleedharan, Vijayabanu, and Indira as defendants. The court heard the suit and allowed a compromise agreement between the parties.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the compromise petition and decreed the suit in terms of the compromise agreement.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the compromise petition and decreed the suit in terms of the compromise agreement.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The terms in the compromise agreement are lawful.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The terms in the compromise agreement are lawful.
Supporting Evidence
I am satisfied that the terms in the compromise agreement is lawful.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence IA 7/2025 is allowed. Suit is decreed in terms of compromised agreement.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Prameela
Party Age
56
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Muraleedharan
Party Age
58
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Vijayabanu
Party Age
55
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Indira
Party Age
50
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Kariyam. M. Santhoshkumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. Rajitha Santhosh
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. P.A. Ahamed
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The suit is decreed in terms of the compromised agreement.
Evidence:
Suit is decreed in terms of compromised agreement.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Compromise petition
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
The court allowed the compromise petition and decreed the suit in terms of the compromised agreement.
Reference:
IA 7/2025

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
2022

Case Flags

Out-of-Court Settlement

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Sat, 02/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 02/28/2025 - 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